LIBRARY 

OF  THE 

UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA. 


GIFT  OF 


.1. 


Class 


TEACHERS  COLLEGE,  COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY 

CONTRIBUTIONS  TO  EDUCATION 

No.  2 


SCHOOL  FUNDS  AND  THEIR 
APPORTIONMENT 


A  CONSIDERATION   OF  THE   SUBJECT  WITH    REFERENCE  TO   A 

MORE  GENERAL  EQUALIZATION  OF  BOTH  THE  BURDENS 

AND  THE  ADVANTAGES  OF  EDUCATION 


BY 

ELLWOOD  P.  CUBBERLEY,  Ph.D., 

Associate  Professor  of  Education  in  the  Leland  Stanford  Junior  University 
Honorary  Fellow,  Teachers  College,  1904-05 


PUBLISHED   BY 

Geacbers  College,  Columbia  THnfver0it£ 

NEW  YORK 
October,  1905  Price,  $1.50 


Teachers  College,  Columbia  University 

CONTRIBUTIONS  TO  EDUCATION 


Teachers  College  issues  at  irregular  intervals  a  series  of  contribu- 
tions on  educational  subjects.  This  series  continues  the  educational 
numbers  in  the  Columbia  University  Contributions  to  Philosophy, 
Psychology  and  Education.  Any  number  in  either  series  will  be  sent 
postpaid  on  receipt  of  the  price  by 

TEACHERS  COLLEGE, 
Columbia  University,  New  York  City. 


TEACHERS  COLLEGE  SERIES 

The  following  numbers  are  announced: 

No.  i     Normal  School  Education  and  Efficiency  in  Teaching.     JUNIUS  LATHROP 
MERIAM,  Ph.D.     Price,  75  cents,  net. 

No.  2    General  Taxation  for  Education  and  the  Apportionment  of  School  Funds. 
ELLWOOD  P.  CUBBERLEY,  Ph.D.     Price,  $1.50,  net. 

No.  3    The  Rise  of  Local  School  Supervision  in  Massachusetts.    ANTHONY  HENRY 
SUZZALLO,  Ph.D.     In  preparation. 

No.  4    A  History  of  Common  School  Funds  in  the  United  States.     FLETCHER  HAR- 
PER SWIFT,  Ph.D.     In  preparation. 


2 

SCHOOL  FUNDS  AND  THEIR 
A  PPORTIONMENT 


TEACHERS  COLLEGE,  COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY 

CONTRIBUTIONS  TO  EDUCATION 


No.  2 


SCHOOL  FUNDS  AND  THEIR 
APPORTIONMENT 


A  CONSIDERATION  OF  THE  SUBJECT  WITH  REFERENCE  TO  A 

MORE  GENERAL  EQUALIZATION  OF  BOTH  THE  BURDENS 

AND  THE  ADVANTAGES  OF  EDUCATION 


BY 


ELLWOOD  P.  CUBBERLEY,  Ph.D., 

Associate  Professor  of  Education  in  the  Leland  Stanford  Junior  University 
Honorary  Fellow,  Teachers  College,  1904-05 


UNIVERsn 

OF 


PUBLISHED   BY 

Geacbers  College,  Columbia 

NEW  YOKE 


October,  1905 


Price,  $1.50 


COPYRIGHT,  1905, 

BY 
ELLWOOD  P.  CUBBERLEY 


OF  THE 

UNIVERSITY 

OF 

, 


PREFACE. 


ONE  of  the  most  important  administrative  problems  of  to-day 
is  how  properly  to  finance  the  school  system  of  a  state,  as  the 
question  of  sufficient  revenue  lies  back  of  almost  every  other 
problem.  This  monograph  is  an  attempt  to  deal  with  this  ques- 
tion, but  with  particular  reference  to  the  proper  distribution  of 
the  revenues  at  hand.  I  have  accordingly  made  a  somewhat  de- 
tailed examination  of  the  various  bases  of  apportionment,  and 
have  attempted  to  establish  certain  principles  which  should  con- 
trol in  the  arranging  or  the  rearranging  of  any  state  apportion- 
ment plan. 

Almost  every  year  some  one  or  more  of  the  different  states  of 
our  Union  makes  an  attempt  to  evolve  a  better  system  of  school 
taxation  and  apportionment,  with  a  view  to  relieving  somewhat 
the  excessive  burdens  and  to  providing  better  and  more  uniform 
school  facilities  for  all  of  the  children  of  the  state.  The  effort 
very  commonly  takes  the  form  of  an  attempt  to  increase  the  state 
school  tax,  without  any  attempt  to  improve  the  apportionment 
plan  under  which  all  revenue  from  school  taxation  is  distributed 
to  the  various  school  units  of  the  state.  However  desirable  and 
even  necessary  it  may  be  to  provide  more  money  with  which  to 
maintain  the  schools  of  the  state,  a  still  more  important  question 
is  how  to  distribute  this  money  so  as  to  secure  the  best  results. 
In  two-thirds  of  the  states  of  the  Union  no  adequate  provision  is 
made  for  the  maintenance  of  the  smaller  schools  of  the  state,  and 
usually  these  are  maintained  in  a  most  unsatisfactory  manner  and 
at  a  sacrifice  entirely  out  of  proportion  to  the  local  benefits  re- 
ceived. On  the  other  hand,  the  cities,  with  their  aggregations  of 
people  and  wealth,  are  able  to  maintain  excellent  school  systems 
on  a  relatively  small  expenditure.  Justice  and  equity  demand  a 
rearrangement  of  the  apportionment  plan  so  as  to  place  a  larger 
proportion  of  aid  where  it  is  most  needed.  There  is  little  excuse 
for  a  system  of  state  taxation  for  education  if  the  income  from 
such  taxation  is  to  be  distributed  in  a  larger  proportion  to  those 

(3) 


4  Preface 

communities  best  able  to  care  for  themselves.  Such  a  statement 
does  not  imply  hostility  to  the  cities.  On  the  contrary,  I  have  re- 
peatedly pointed  out  that  the  cities  do  not  receive  any  proper 
recognition  for  the  longer  term  or  the  many  additional  educa- 
tional advantages  which  they  now  provide.  Under  such  a  thor- 
oughly unjust  apportionment  basis  as  the  school  census,  however, 
the  cities  now  receive  the  lion's  share,  and  many  are  paid  an 
amount  out  of  all  proportion  to  their  relative  needs  or  efforts 
made. 

Throughout  the  discussion  which  follows  I  have  kept  in  mind 
certain  principles  which  seem  to  me  to  be  sound.  In  the  first 
place  I  have  conceived  of  a  state  system  of  schools  instead  of  a 
series  of  local  systems.  Without  such  a  conception  no  equaliza- 
tion of  either  the  burdens  or  the  advantages  of  education  is  pos- 
sible. In  the  second  place,  I  have  stated  repeatedly  that  the 
maintenance  of  good  schools  is  not,  like  the  maintenance  of  sewers 
or  streets,  a  matter  of  local  interest,  but  is  in  part  for  the  com- 
mon good  of  all,  and  hence  that  the  burden  of  maintaining  what 
is  for  the  common  good  of  all  should  be  in  part  assumed  by  the 
state  as  a  whole.  In  the  third  place,  I  have  held  that  the  aid 
given  should  not  be  given  indiscriminately  to  all,  without  refer- 
ence to  relative  needs  or  efforts  made,  but  should  bear  some 
definite  relation  to  the  needs  of  a  community  and  to  the  efforts 
which  it  makes  to  provide  good  schools  and  to  secure  the  attend- 
ance of  children  at  them.  The  adoption  of  these  principles  would 
involve  a  reshaping  of  the  apportionment  system  of  most  of  the 
states  of  the  Union,  and  would  involve  a  change  in  the  attitude 
of  the  state  toward  its  educational  system.  The  state  would  then 
become  an  active  and  positive  force  working  toward  the  im- 
provement of  educational  conditions  throughout  the  state,  and 
the  resulting  progress  would  be  correspondingly  rapid. 

With  the  strong  demand  everywhere  manifest  for  an  improve- 
ment in  educational  conditions  and  in  the  teachers'  annual  sala- 
ries, the  time  is  opportune,  in  many  states,  for  a  reopening  of  the 
question  of  providing  adequate  school  revenue  and  for  the  re- 
vision of  the  general  apportionment  plan.  The  author  would  be 
glad  if  the  principles  laid  down  in  the  following  pages  should 
prove  of  service  in  formulating  future  legislation  on  the  subject. 

ELLWOOD  P.  CUBBERLEY. 

NEW  YORK,  April,  1905. 


ANALYTICAL  TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 


PART  I. 

CHANGES;  INEQUALITIES  EXISTING;  PROVISIONS 
FOR  RELIEF. 

CHAPTER  I. 
INTRODUCTION:  THE  PROBLEM  STATED. 

PAGE 

Establishment  of  the  principle  of  free  public  education 15 

Questions  which  had  to  be  settled 15 

Education  now  a  recognized  function  of  the  state 16 

Requirements  which  the  states  have  imposed 16 

The  duty  of  the  state  in  the  matter 17 

When  the  minimum  requirements  should  be  increased 17 

The  question  of  maintenance  involved 17 

What  this  study  will  include 18 

The  main  problem 18 

Order  of  procedure 19 

Positive  attitude  of  the  state 20 

CHAPTER  II. 

CHANGES  IN  POPULATION,  WEALTH,  AND  EDUCATION. 

Changes  during  the  past  half  century         21 . 

Concentration  of  population  and  wealth 22. 

Effect  of  the  growth  of  inequalities  on  the  support  of  schools    ....  23, 

Illustrations  taken  from  Massachusetts 24. 

Large  increase  in  the  cost  of  education 24 

Changes;  improvements;  new  expenses 25, 

The  cost  to-day  greater  than  some  communities  can  meet  ....  25 . 

Illustrations  from  Indiana 26 

Illustrations  from  Nebraska 26. 

Illustrations  from  Missouri 27. 

Attitude  the  state  should  assume 27. 

CHAPTER  III. 

ILLUSTRATIONS   OF   EXISTING  INEQUALITIES:   MASSACHUSETTS. 

Changes  in  Massachusetts  in  the  past  thirty  years 28 

School  tax-rate  and  term  compared  for  all  towns,  1871 29 

Mr.  White's  conclusions  .    . 30 

Mr.  White's  study  of  the  thirty-seven  poorest  towns  ....  31 

(s) 


School  Funds  and  their  Apportionment 


~~-*                 Changes  in  these  towns  in  thirty  years 33 

This  compared  with  the  cost  for  education 34 

Mr.  Hill's  study  of  Massachusetts  towns  in  1901 35 

Comparison  of  the  four  wealthiest  and  the  four  poorest 35 

Distribution  of  the  property  valuation  per  pupil  in  the  towns  .    -  36 

Comparison  of  the  tax-rate  and  the  income  produced    ......  37 

Inequalities  revealed 37 

Why  Massachusetts  is  a  good  state  to  study 38 

CHAPTER  IV. 

INEQUALITIES  EXISTING  IN  CERTAIN  OTHER  STATES. 

The  state  of  Connecticut 40 

Inequalities  existing  between  the  different  counties 40 

Inequalities  among  the  towns  of  Windham  county 4? 

Inequalities  among  the  towns  of  Fairfield  county 43 

The  towns  of  Ashford  and  Putnam  compared  as  to  possibilities.    .  44 
The  seven  wealthiest  and  the  seven  poorest  towns  of  Fairfield 

county  similarly  compared  -       46 

Inequalities  among  certain  Wisconsin  counties 47 

Inequalities  among  certain  Missouri  counties       48 

Inequalities  among  certain  Kansas  counties 49 

Inequalities  among  certain  California  counties 50 

Taxable  valuation  per  teacher  employed  the  real  test 51 

Inequalities  among  certain  Indiana  counties .  52 

Inequalities  among  the  different  counties  of  Washington 52 

Extremes  in  ability  to  properly  maintain  a  school  as  shown    ...  53 
Equalization  of  opportunities  impossible  under  a  system  of  local 

taxation 54 

CHAPTER  V. 

PERMANENT  ENDOWMENT   FUNDS  FOR  EDUCATION. 

Examples  of  early  endowments  for  schools    . 55 

Some  early  state  school  endowment  funds ....  56 

Aid  given  the  states  by  the  General  Government           ......  57 

The  Sixteenth  Section  grants 57 

The  Surplus  Revenue  distribution 57 

Other  general  grants  to  the  states    -           58 

Efforts  made  by  various  states  to  increase  their  funds 58 

Present  conditions 59 

"  Perpetual  obligations  " 60 

Inequalities  existing  due  to  unequalized  local  funds 61 

Missouri  as  an  illustration  of  this  condition 62 

Small  and  decreasing  importance  of  these  permanent  funds    ....  62 

Indiana  as  an  illustration  of  this 63 

Missouri,  Kansas,  and  Texas  fund  incomes 64 

Fund  income  small,  and  usually  distributed  badly 65 

Idea  of  these  funds  as  an  important  means  of  support  abandoned  ...  65 


Analytical  Table  of  Contents  7 

PAGE 

CHAPTER  VI. 

GENERAL   TAXATION    FOR   EDUCATION. 

The  idea  underlying  all  forms  of  general  taxation 66 

Permissive  district  taxation  the  first  step 66 

Town  or  township  taxation  a  distinctly  broader  conception  ....  67 

County  taxation  represents  a  still  broader  conception 67 

Value  of,  in  equalizing  burdens  and  advantages 67 

Where  found  and  forms  of 68 

State  taxation  represents  the  broadest  conception 70 

States  levying  no  state  tax              71 

The  struggle  for  a  state  school  tax 71 

Connecticut;  New  York;  Ohio 72 

History  of  the  state  school  tax  in  Indiana 72 

Forms  of  state  taxation  for  schools 74 

Advantages  of  a  state  school  tax  over  a  county  school  tax  ...  78 

The  state  of  Washington  as  an  illustration 80 

The  equalizing  result    ....               81 

The  equalizing  effect  of  general  over  local  taxation  best  illustrated 

by  California      82 

Our  main  problem,  though,  not  one  of  taxation,  but  rather  of  the 
proper  distribution  of  the  income  from  permanent  funds  and  from 

established  taxation    .    .           83 

The  three  great  steps  in  the  equalization  of  educational  advantages  .   .  84 

All  funds  and  taxes  require  an  intelligent  system  of  distribution    ...  85 

Evolution  of  the  theory  of  distribution  analagous  to  that  of  general 

taxation 85 

An  equal  distribution  vs.  an  equalized  distribution 86 

Order  of  procedure  in  Part  II 86 


PART  II. 

THE  DISTRIBUTION  OF  THE  RELIEF  AT  HAND. 
CHAPTER  VII. 

DISTRIBUTION    WITH    REFERENCE   TO    TAXES   AND   WEALTH. 

Apportionment  on  the  basis  of  taxes  paid 88 

This  one  of  the  earliest  and  poorest  of  methods 88 

Its  use  and  abandonment  in  Indiana           89 

In  reality  only  compulsory  local  taxation 89 

Inequalities  arising  under  its  use  illustrated               90 

School  tax  returned  for  each  dollar  paid  in  Florida    ...       .91 

School  tax  returned  for  each  dollar  paid  in  New  York  -    ...  92 

Apportionment  on  census  and  taxes  paid  in  Tennessee   ...  92 


8  School  Funds  and  their  Apportionment 

PAGE 

Apportionment  on  the  basis  of  property  valuation 93 

Its  use  in  Pennsylvania  and  New  Jersey 93 

Neither  basis  has  any  educational  significance 93 

CHAPTER  VIII. 

DISTRIBUTION   WITH    REFERENCE  TO   TOTAL    POPULATION. 

This  essentially  a  transition  basis /, 94 

Inaccurate  even  as  a  method  of  approximation "  95 

Illustrations  from  Massachusetts  statistics 95 

Illustrations  from  Indiana  statistics 97 

Illustrations  from  New  York  statistics 97 

Other  disadvantages  of  the  basis 99 

CHAPTER  IX. 

THE   SCHOOL   CENSUS    BASIS. 

Extensive  use  of  the  school  census  basis 100 

The  pupil  basis  vs.  the  teacher  basis 100 

Theoretical  defects  in  the  census  basis 101 

Country  school  and  city  school  placed  on  the  same  basis 101 

No  incentive  to  the  establishment  of  kindergartens   .......  101 

No  incentive  toward  any  form  of  extra  educational  effort    ....  102 

No  means  of  dispensing  with  inter-district  tuition  fees 103 

In  practice  only  slightly  equalizes  inequalities 104 

Effect  produced  in  certain  Wisconsin  counties 105 

Inequalities  resulting  relatively  greater  than  before 105 

How  small  schools  would  fare  under  the  census  basis  illus- 
trated by  Wisconsin  schools 106 

Size  of  schools  in  certain  Wisconsin  counties 107 

Why  the  census  basis  gives  very  unequal  results 108 

Effect  produced  in  certain  Missouri  counties 108 

Inequalities   resulting                                                       109 

Inequalities  increased  by  the  presence  of  unequalized  perma- 
nent local  school  funds 109 

This  illustrated  for  Andrew  county no 

Effect  produced  in  certain  Kansas  counties in 

Inequalities  resulting  .                                                              ...  Ill 

Effect  produced  in  certain  California  counties 112^ 

Great  inequalities  resulting .    .  "112 

Teachers'  salaries  in  San  Francisco  and  elsewhere 112 

Effect  produced  in  certain  Indiana  counties 114 

The  census  basis  offers  no  incentive  to  communities  to  make  any  effort 

for  themselves      114 

Actual  value  of  the  census  apportionment : 

In  certain  Wisconsin  counties  and  cities 115 

In  certain  Kansas  counties  and  cities 116 

In  certain  Missouri  counties  and  cities 117 


Analytical  Table  of  Contents 


In  certain  California  counties  and  cities .    .  ,118 

In  certain  Indiana  counties  and  cities '   *  .  .  119 

Similar  inequalities  exist  in  other  states 119 

"Padding"  the  census  lists 120 

Private  school  attendance  paid  for 120 

Value  of  such  payments  in  ten  Connecticut  cities 121 

Value  of  such  payment  in  the  city  of  Milwaukee 122 

Value  of  such  payment  in  Wayne  county,  Michigan 122 

Value  of  such  payment  in  the  city  of  San  Francisco 122 

The  private  school  vs.  the  public  school 123 

Attitude  the  state  should  assume 123 

The  census  basis  places  no  premium  on  educational  effort  of  any 

kind,  or  on  any  improvement  of  educational  conditions   ....  123 

Also  does  not  provide  for  "a  general  and  uniform  system  of  free 

common  schools  throughout  the  state" 124 

The  thirty-eight  states  and  territories  using  the  census  basis      .  125 

Effect  of  a  large  census  apportionment  in  Texas 126 

The  county  system  of  the  South:  Georgia  as  a  type 127 

Attempts  to  improve  conditions  despite  constitutional  limitations.  128 

Oregon,  Kentucky,  and  Wyoming 128 

CHAPTER  X. 

THE   ENROLLMENT  AND   AVERAGE   MEMBERSHIP   BASIS. 

The  Enrollment  Basis 130 

Percentage  of  census  enrolled  in  certain  states 131 

The  same  in  certain  rural,  town  and  city  schools  in  certain  Indiana 

counties 133 

Value  of  the  census  apportionment  on  enrollment  in  certain  states.  134 

Inequalities  revealed,  indicating  that  enrollment  would  be  a 

better  apportionment  basis  than  census 134 

Certain  objections  to  the  enrollment  basis 135 

The  enrollment  basis  and  the  country  school 135 

What  small  schools  would  receive  in  Wisconsin 136 

The  enrollment  basis  as  used  in  New  Hampshire 137 

The  enrollment  basis  as  used  in  Minnesota 139 

City  and  rural  school  enrollments  compared 140 

Merits  and  defects  revealed 141 

The  Average  Membership  Basis 142 

Advantages  over  the  enrollment  basis 142 

Average  membership  illustrated  for  four  schools 142 

Where  the  premium  is  placed 143 

Possible  to  abolish  inter-district  tuition  fees 143 

Practical  objections  to  the  use  of  average  membership 144 

Difference  between  membership  and  attendance 145 

This  basis  a  transition  one  and  of  little  practical  use 145 

Daily  attendance  the  next  step 145 


io  School  Funds  and  their  Apportionment 

PAGE 

CHAPTER  XI. 

THE  DAILY  ATTENDANCE  BASES.  - 

The  Average  Daily  Attendance  Basis  .   . 146 

Where  the  state  premium  is  placed  under  this  basis 146 

Average  daily  attendance  for  two  schools  compared 147 

Gain  and  loss  at  assumed  values 147 

Comparison  with  the  census  basis 148 

Enrollment    and  average  daily  attendance  compared   for  certain 

counties  and  cities  in  Missouri  and  Indiana .    .  149 

Census,   enrollment  and  average  daily  attendance  compared   for 

certain  Indiana  counties    .        .    '. 150 

Enrollment  shown  to  be  the  important  item  .       151 

The  daily  attendance  basis  a  "payment  by  results"  basis    ....  152 

On  what  the  premium  is  placed 152 

Types  of  cities  in  attitude  toward  schools 152 

Attendance  in  country  communities 152 

How  the  small  school  would  fare 153 

Calculations  based  on  Wisconsin  figures '.    .  154 

Apportionment  same  for  average  school  under  any  basis  .  156 

This  illustrated  for  four  schools 157 

Use  of  average  daily  attendance  by  different  states 158 

Census  apportionment  and  attendance  apportionment  compared  .  159 

For  Silver  Bow  county,  Montana .  160 

For  certain  Indiana  counties  and  cities 161 

The  reason  for  gain  or  loss  .   . .    .  163 

The  real  school-size  of  a  city 164 

Small  schools  no  better  off  under  this  basis  than  under  the  census 

basis  of  apportionment  .    .       165 

The  teacher  required  the  real  test 165 

The  daily  attendance  basis  also  neglects  length  of  term. 166 

Importance  of  including  this  illustrated 166 

Omission  unjust  to  cities  and  to  progressive  communities  .   .  167 
Otherwise    attendance    money   inversely   proportional    to 

length  of  term  provided.     This  illustrated 168 

Inequalities  in  grants  and  term  in  various  states 169 

Aggregate  days'  attendance  the  remedy 170 

The  Aggregate  Days'  Attendance  Basis 170 

Means  of  calculating  this          .   . 170 

Use  of  the  basis  in  certain  states 170 

Greater  justice  of  this  basis 171 

This  illustrated  by  four  schools 172 

Great  injustice,  however,  to  small  schools 173 

Income  of  a  city  school  and  a  country  school  compared    ...  173 

Used  alone  would  be  more  unjust  than  the  census  basis 174 

Corrective  needed  is  a  recognition  of  the  teacher  unit  ....  174 

Washington's  2,000  days  corrective 174 


Analytical  Table  of  Contents  n 

PAGE 

Allowance  also  needed  for  unexpected  breaks 174 

Such  allowances  in  Washington  and  New  Jersey  .   •    •  175 

CHAPTER  XII. 

THE   DISTRICT  AND   THE   TEACHER   BASES. 

The  School  District  as  a  Basis 176 

Use  as  a  corrective  in  a  combination  plan 176 

Use  by  counties  in  various  states 176 

The  county  only  partially  equalizes :    .    .    .  177 

Oregon  as  an  illustration 177 

Essentially  a  transition  type  to  the  teacher  basis 178 

The  Teacher  Basis      178 

Use  of  the  teacher  employed  as  a  basis  by  various  states 179 

The  Delaware  plan 179 

Teacher  employed  the  most  equitable  single  basis 180 

This  illustrated  for  Wisconsin 180 

Also  illustrated  for  Indiana 180 

Census  basis  and  teachers-employed  basis  compared  .....  181 

For  certain  Wisconsin  counties 182 

For  certain  Missouri  counties 183 

Equalizing  result  of  such  an  apportionment  basis 183 

Gain  to  the  rural  districts 184 

Small  real  loss  to  the  cities 184 

Milwaukee  and  Indianapolis  as  illustrations  .   .   .  185 

Premium  placed  on  a  sufficient  number  of  teachers 186 

Value  of  this  to  the  cities 186 

Value  of  this  to  the  large  rural  school 187 

Numerous  advantages  of  the  basis 187 

Teacher-quota  as  determined  by  indirect  methods 188 

The  California  and  Nevada  methods 188 

Actual  results  under  the  California  method 

In  certain  counties 190 

In  certain  cities 191 

Undesirability  of  this  indirect  method 191 

Average  daily  attendance  a  better  indirect  basis 191 

Best  method  of  determining  teacher-quota  is  to  use  the 

records  of  actual  employment 192 

This  method  contrasted  with  the  California  method  .  193 

Automatic  adjustment  to  new  conditions   ....  194 
Teacher  basis  best  adapted  to  use  with  some  other  basis  or  bases  to 

form  a  combination-type  apportionment  plan 195 

This  shown  for  Wisconsin  schools 196 

Combination  plans  in  use  in  certain  states    .   . 197 

Best  results  only  obtainable  by  using  two  or  more  bases  in 

combination 197 

The  best  combination  basis  plan 197 


12  School  Funds  and  their  Apportionment 

CHAPTER  XIII. 

DISTRIBUTION   WITH    REFERENCE   TO   EFFORT   AND   NEED. 

Preceding  apportionment  plans  summarized 199 

None  of  these  plans  produce  real  equalization 199 

What  a  combination  plan  attempts  to  do 200 

The  teacher  the  unit  of  cost 200 

Inequalities  in  the  distribution  of  population  and  wealth  in  part  deter- 
mine possibilities  201 

Illustrations  from  Massachusetts 201 

Illustrations  from  Connecticut 202 

The  third  step  in  equalization  only  begun 202 

The  New  York  graded  "  district  quota" 202 

The  North  Carolina  equalized  term 203 

This  an  example  of  state  justice 204 

The  New  Jersey  Reserve  Fund  .   . 204 

The  Vermont  Reserve  Fund 205 

The  New  Hampshire  appropriation  for  equalizing 205 

Results  under  this  law 206 

The  Connecticut  equalization  law 207 

What  this  law  is  in  effect 208 

Results  in  Connecticut  ...       209 

The  Massachusetts  effort  at  equalization 209 

Evolution  of  the  present  system 210 

Forms  of  aid  granted  to  communities 211 

Summary  of  the  Massachusetts  law 212 

Defects  of  the  plan 212 

General  applicability  of  the  Reserve  Fund  idea 213 

Indiana  as  an  illustration 214 

The  usual  method  employed 214 

A  much  better  plan 215 

Nebraska  another  illustration 215 

Conditions  and  needs 216 

Oregon  another  illustration , 217 

The  effort  and  need  basis  considers  the  taxpayer  as  well  as  the  pupils 

and  teacher •    .   .    .    . 218 

Two  possibilities  open  to  a  state 218 

General  principles  which  hold  good 219 

Equalization  of  tax-rate  only  down  to  a  determined  maximum  .   .    219 

All  grants  on  application  and  discretionary 219 

Aid  granted  proportional  to  effort  made 219 

Value  of  the  attendance  basis  here 220 

Temporary  nature  of  such  grants 220 

Value  of  the  Connecticut  plan  here 220 

Possible  further  extension  of  the  graded  teacher-quota 221 

If  fund  is  small,  better  if  used  largely  or  entirely  in  this  manner  .    221 

Iowa,  Kansas  and  Oregon  as  illustrations 222 

Possible  reserve  fund  in  other  states 223 


Analytical  Table  of  Contents  13 

PAGE 

CHAPTER  XIV. 

EQUALIZING  THE  ADVANTAGES   OF   SECONDARY  EDUCATION. 

Existing  provisions  so  far  made   ...    - 224 

Cost  of  maintenance  greater,  and  results 224 

The  no-recognition  plan 225 

Evolution  of  general  aid  for 226 

Local,  county,  and  state  high  schools 226 

The  no-recognition  plan  an  accompaniment  of  the  census  basis  ....  227 

Injustice  of  this  illustrated  by  Indiana 227 

State  subsidies  the  beginning  of  state  aid 228 

Actual  results  under  the  subsidy  plan  illustrated  by 

Minnesota,  North  Dakota,  and  Pennsylvania .   .  228 

Defects  of  the  subsidy  plan 229 

Evolution  of  the  secondary  school  system  in  California 230 

The  state  high-school  tax 2$. 

Regulation  of  tuition  charges 231 

Merits  of  the  California  plan 232 

Logical  conclusion  of  the  process 232 

Where  the  California  plan  is  defective 233 

Complete  incorporation  into  the  state  system  as  found  in  New  Jersey  .  233 

This  plan  illustrated  for  three  schools 234 

Marked  merits  of  such  a  plan 234 

Incorporation  must  not  be  made  at  expense  of  elementary  schools.  235 

Superiority  of  this  plan  over  all  others 235 

Comparison  of  the  different  plans 236 

Importance  of  abolishing  all  artificial  divisions 237 

The  New  Jersey  vs.  the  California  plan 237 

The  case  of  the  six-years'  high  school 237 

Provision  of  free  tuition  for  non-residents 237 

Recent  assumption  of  this  charge  by  the  state 238 

Various  methods  employed  in  different  states 238 

Movement  to  be  encouraged  . 239 

CHAPTER  XV. 

STATE  SUBSIDIES   FOR   OTHER  ADVANTAGES. 

Recent  valuable  additions  to  educational  work 240 

Census  Basis  precludes  recognition  of  these 240 

Desirability  of  some  of  these  for  all  schools 240 

Negative  position  taken  by  most  states 241 

Illustrations  of  positive  action  by  states 241 

Special  legislation  for  each  necessary  under  most  apportionment  laws.  242 

Better  to  revise  the  general  apportionment  law 242 

How  this  can  be  done 243 

Simplicity  and  justice  of  the  plan  .    .               244 

The  result  of  such  recognition -   ....  244 

Provision  of  professional  supervision  for  all  schools 244 

The  work  of  Massachusetts 245 


12  School  Funds  and  their  Apportionment 

CHAPTER  XIII. 

DISTRIBUTION   WITH    REFERENCE   TO   EFFORT  AND   NEED. 

Preceding  apportionment  plans  summarized 199 

None  of  these  plans  produce  real  equalization 199 

What  a  combination  plan  attempts  to  do 200 

The  teacher  the  unit  of  cost 200 

Inequalities  in  the  distribution  of  population  and  wealth  in  part  deter- 
mine possibilities  201 

Illustrations  from  Massachusetts 201 

Illustrations  from  Connecticut 202 

The  third  step  in  equalization  only  begun 202 

The  New  York  graded  "district  quota" 202 

The  North  Carolina  equalized  term 203 

This  an  example  of  state  justice 204 

The  New  Jersey  Reserve  Fund  .   . 204 

The  Vermont  Reserve  Fund 205 

The  New  Hampshire  appropriation  for  equalizing 205 

Results  under  this  law 206 

The  Connecticut  equalization  law 207 

What  this  law  is  in  effect 208 

Results  in  Connecticut  ...       209 

The  Massachusetts  effort  at  equalization 209 

Evolution  of  the  present  system 210 

Forms  of  aid  granted  to  communities 211 

Summary  of  the  Massachusetts  law 212 

Defects  of  the  plan 212 

General  applicability  of  the  Reserve  Fund  idea 213 

Indiana  as  an  illustration 214 

The  usual  method  employed 214 

A  much  better  plan 215 

Nebraska  another  illustration 215 

Conditions  and  needs 216 

Oregon  another  illustration 217 

The  effort  and  need  basis  considers  the  taxpayer  as  well  as  the  pupils 

and  teacher •    .   .    . .    218 

Two  possibilities  open  to  a  state 218 

General  principles  which  hold  good 219 

Equalization  of  tax-rate  only  down  to  a  determined  maximum  .   .    219 

All  grants  on  application  and  discretionary 219 

Aid  granted  proportional  to  effort  made 219 

Value  of  the  attendance  basis  here 220 

Temporary  nature  of  such  grants 220 

Value  of  the  Connecticut  plan  here 220 

Possible  further  extension  of  the  graded  teacher-quota 221 

If  fund  is  small,  better  if  used  largely  or  entirely  in  this  manner  .    221 

Iowa,  Kansas  and  Oregon  as  illustrations 222 

Possible  reserve  fund  in  other  states 223 


Analytical  Table  of  Contents  13 

PAGE 

CHAPTER  XIV. 

EQUALIZING  THE  ADVANTAGES   OF   SECONDARY  EDUCATION. 

Existing  provisions  so  far  made ....  224 

Cost  of  maintenance  greater,  and  results 224 

The  no-recognition  plan 225 

Evolution  of  general  aid  for 226 

Local,  county,  and  state  high  schools 226 

The  no-recognition  plan  an  accompaniment  of  the  census  basis  ....  227 

Injustice  of  this  illustrated  by  Indiana 227 

State  subsidies  the  beginning  of  state  aid 228 

Actual  results  under  the  subsidy  plan  illustrated  by 

Minnesota,  North  Dakota,  and  Pennsylvania .   .  228 

Defects  of  the  subsidy  plan 229 

Evolution  of  the  secondary  school  system  in  California 230 

The  state  high-school  tax 2$l 

Regulation  of  tuition  charges 231 

Merits  of  the  California  plan 232 

Logical  conclusion  of  the  process 232 

Where  the  California  plan  is  defective 233 

Complete  incorporation  into  the  state  system  as  found  in  New  Jersey  .  233 

This  plan  illustrated  for  three  schools 234 

Marked  merits  of  such  a  plan 234 

Incorporation  must  not  be  made  at  expense  of  elementary  schools.  235 

Superiority  of  this  plan  over  all  others 235 

Comparison  of  the  different  plans 236 

Importance  of  abolishing  all  artificial  divisions 237 

The  New  Jersey  vs.  the  California  plan 237 

The  case  of  the  six-years'  high  school 237 

Provision  of  free  tuition  for  non-residents 237 

Recent  assumption  of  this  charge  by  the  state 238 

Various  methods  employed  in  different  states 238 

Movement  to  be  encouraged  .    .       239 

CHAPTER  XV. 

STATE  SUBSIDIES   FOR   OTHER   ADVANTAGES. 

Recent  valuable  additions  to  educational  work 240 

Census  Basis  precludes  recognition  of  these 240 

Desirability  of  some  of  these  for  all  schools 240 

Negative  position  taken  by  most  states 241 

Illustrations  of  positive  action  by  states 241 

Special  legislation  for  each  necessary  under  most  apportionment  laws.  242 

Better  to  revise  the  general  apportionment  law 242 

How  this  can  be  done 243 

Simplicity  and  justice  of  the  plan  .    .               244 

The  result  of  such  recognition 244 

Provision  of  professional  supervision  for  all  schools 244 

The  work  of  Massachusetts 245 


16  School  Funds  and  their  Apportionment 

dren  to  be  educated.  To  this  end  we  have  extensive  systems  of 
public  education;  administrative  officers;  required  courses  of 
instruction;  compulsory  education,  in  theory  at  least;  large  per- 
manent endowment  funds  for  public  education;  various  forms  of 
taxation  from  permissive  to  mandatory;  and  various  methods  of 
distributing  the  income  from  taxation  and  from  the  endowment 
funds  set  aside  for  the  maintenance  of  public  schools. 

Education  has  thus  gradually  become  one  of  the  greatest  inter- 
ests of  the  people  of  the  United  States.  Whatever  may  be  their 
imperfections,  the  different  state  school  systems  are  believed  to 
be  essential  to  the  best  interests  of  our  Republic  and  are  supported 
willingly  and  sometimes  even  generously  by  the  people  of  the 
different  states.  Every  state  has  recognized  public  education  as 
one  of  its  most  important  functions ;  requirements  as  to  the  sup- 
port and  maintenance  of  a  system  of  public  education  are  to  be 
found  in  the  different  state  constitutions ;  a  number  of  states  set 
aside  from  one-fourth  to  one-third  of  the  entire  state  income  for 
the  support  of  public  schools ;  and  the  various  "  School  Laws  " 
which  have  been  developed  indicate  the  interest  and  the  over- 
sight of  the  state  in  the  matter.  Beginning  often  with  merely 
local  or  individual  permission,  this  has  been  changed,  little  by 
little,  into  definite  requirements  and  obligations.  All  this  is  in- 
dicative of  a  fuller  and  fuller  recognition  on  the  part  of  the 
state  that  the  state  owes  it  to  itself  and  to  its  children,  not  only  to 
permit  of  the  establishment  of  schools,  but  also  to  require  them  to 
be  established, — even  more,  to  require  that  these  schools,  when 
established,  shall  be  taught  by  a  qualified  teacher  for  a  certain 
minimum  period  of  time  each  year,  and  taught  under  conditions 
and  according  to  requirements  which  the  state  has  from  time  to 
time  seen  fit  to  impose.  While  leaving  the  way  open  for  all  to  go 
beyond  these  requirements  the  state  must  see  that  none  fall  below. 

The  requirements  which  the  state  may  justly  impose  by  law 
must  of  necessity  vary  in  the  different  states  of  the  Union.  The 
amount  of  education  which  a  state  can  afford  is  to  a  large  degree 
proportioned  to  its  per-capita  wealth.  What  is  good  and  desir- 
able for  the  children  of  Illinois  may  be  equally  good  and  desir- 
able for  the  children  of  Arkansas,  but  it  may  be  impossible  for 
the  people  of  Arkansas,  for  the  present  at  least,  to  provide  quite 
so  good  or  quite  so  extensive  an  education  for  their  children. 
The  same  is  true  of  California  and  Oregon,  of  Massachusetts  and 


Introduction:  Problem  Stated  17 

Vermont,  of  Texas  and  Louisiana.  Even  within  the  state  itself 
there  will  naturally  be  variations, — a  large  wealthy  city  can  have 
more  and  better  schools  than  can  the  cities  of  five  thousand  in- 
habitants throughout  the  state,  and  these  in  turn  can  have  better 
schools  than  the  rural  districts  in  the  same  county. 

These  conditions  are  inevitable  and  must  be  considered  by  the 
state  in  formulating  its  demands  and  in  apportioning  its  funds. 
Theoretically  all  the  children  of  the  state  are  equally  important  and 
are  entitled  to  have  the  same  advantages;  practically  this  can 
never  be  quite  true.  The  duty  of  the  state  is  to  secure  for  all  as 
high  a  minimum  of  good  instruction  as  is  possible,  but  not  to  re- 
duce all  to  this  minimum ;  to  equalize  the  advantages  to  all  as 
nearly  as  can  be  done  with  the  resources  at  hand;  to  place  a 
premium  on  those  local  efforts  which  will  enable  communities  to 
rise  above  the  legal  minimum  as  far  as  possible ;  and  to  encourage 
communities  to  extend  their  educational  energies  to  new  and 
desirable  undertakings. 

As  fast  as  can  be  done  the  minimum  requirements  of  the  state 
should  be  increased,  and  this  should  be  done  by  the  state  without 
reference  to  whether  or  not  a  portion  of  its  communities  will  be 
unable,  unaided,  to  meet  the  demands.  If  the  state  deems  it  de- 
sirable that  all  its  children  should  have  certain  advantages  it  should 
require  communities  to  furnish  them.  It  is  the  interests  of  the 
state  and  of  the  children  of  the  state  which  are  to  be  considered, 
and  if  certain  communities  are  not  able  to  meet  the  new  demands 
it  then  becomes  the  duty  of  the  state  to  render  assistance.  By 
making  greater  demands  than  can  be  met  the  state  places  itself 
under  obligations  to  help  its  poorer  members  to  comply  with  de- 
mands which  are  for  the  general  good  but  which  are  beyond  the 
power  of  these  poorer  communities  to  meet.  This  is  not  only 
justice,  but  it  is  demanded  by  sound  public  policy. 

In  determining  whether  the  requirements  made  by  a  state  may 
be  increased  it  is  customary  to  determine  whether  or  not  the  local 
or  the  general  tax  rate  for  education  can  be  increased  so  as  to 
produce  more  money  for  public  education.  Such  an  increase 
may  be  desirable  in  any  case.  A  far  more  fundamental  question, 
however,  is  whether  or  not  the  money  now  at  hand  for 
distribution  is  distributed  in  the  best  manner  possible,  and  whether 
or  not,  by  a  change  in  the  method  of  distribution,  the  burdens  of 
support  could  not  be  greatly  decreased  and  the  minimum  require- 


1 8  School  Funds  and  their  Apportionment 

ments  at  the  same  time  be  increased,  and  this  without  doing 
any  real  injustice  to  any  one. 

In  examining  this  problem  it  will  not  be  our  purpose  to  trace 
the  history  of  the  formation  of  school  funds  or  the  levying  of 
school  taxes.  Neither  will  it  be  our  purpose  to  discuss  the  prin- 
ciples of  taxation  as  applied  to  the  levying  of  school  taxes,  except 
as  the  principles  involved  are  educational  rather  than  economic. 
We  shall  assume  that  it  is  the  settled  purpose  of  the  American 
people  to  support  a  system  of  public  education  at  public  expense. 
This  purpose  is  of  course  more  clearly  conceived  in  some  com- 
munities and  states  than  in  others,  and  the  extent  of  the  system 
supported,  as  well  as  the  amount  of  support  given  and  the  method 
of  giving  it,  vary  widely  in  different  states. 

It  will  be  our  purpose,  however,  to  examine  the  different  type 
plans  for  support  with  reference  to  their  educational  value;  to 
see  in  how  far  the  various  type  plans  for  the  distribution  of  school 
funds  now  in  use  in  the  different  American  states  tend  to  equalize 
the  burdens  and  the  advantages  of  education  throughout  the  state ; 
and  to  set  forth  clearly  certain  fundamental  principles  which 
should  be  kept  in  mind  in  arranging  or  in  revising  any  plan  for 
the  distribution  of  the  income  from  permanent  funds  or  general 
taxation  for  education. 

While  the  different  forms  of  taxation  for  education  must  of 
necessity  be  considered,  our  primary  concern  will  be  rather  with 
the  methods  of  distribution.  An  equal  per-capita  distribution  of 
funds,  as  at  present  required  by  so  many  of  our  state  constitu- 
tions and  state  laws,  is  not  necessarily  an  equitable  distribution, 
and  we  wish  to  show  that  a  political  or  taxing  unit  should  so  use 
whatever  school  funds  it  may  have  for  distribution  as  to  equalize, 
as  nearly  as  is  practicable,  the  common  educational  advantages  to 
all,  and  to  give  an  incentive  toward  and  to  place  a  premium  on 
the  development  by  communities  of  new  and  desirable  additional 
school  advantages. 

After  indicating  the  changes  in  economic  conditions  and  in  edu- 
cation which  have  taken  place  and  the  efforts  made  by  the  states 
to  aid  communities  by  endowment  funds  and  by  general  taxation 
for  education,  we  shall  pass  to  a  consideration  of  the  latter 
aspect  of  the  problem,  with  a  view  to  establishing  certain  prin- 
ciples which  should  control  in  the  distribution  of  such  aid.  In 
doing  so  we  shall  hope  to  show  that  in  a  majority  of  the  states 


; 

%R~  ry  ) 


Introduction:  Problem  Stated  19 


of  the  Union  the  methods  in  use  for  distributing  state  funds  for 
schools  are  not  based  on  the  best  principles,  and  do  not  afford  the 
relief  which  should  be  given  ;  and,  further,  that  the  adoption  of  a 
better  method  of  distribution  would  enable  many  states,  with  no 
material  increase  in  the  funds  at  their  disposal,  to  relieve  the 
burdens  of  those  communities  least  able  to  bear  them  and  to  in- 
crease materially  the  length  of  school  term,  and  to  do  this  without 
unduly  increasing  the  burden  of  local  support  on  any  community. 

In  considering  this  problem  we  shall  proceed  in  the  following 
order  : 

We  shall  first  illustrate  the  changes  which  have  taken  place 
and  are  still  taking  place  in  the  distribution  of  wealth  and  school 
population,  using  groups  of  towns  in  the  state  of  Massachusetts 
for  this  purpose,  and  then  illustrate  the  existing  inequalities  in 
taxing  power  for  education  by  examining  representative  groups 
in  a  number  of  different  states.  In  doing  this  we  shall  inquire  in 
how  far  it  is  possible  to  support  schools  wholly  by  local  taxation. 

We  shall  next  consider  the  permanent  endowment  funds  for 
public  education  which  have  been  established  in  the  various  states, 
to  see  in  how  far  these  may  be  depended  on  for  aid  in  equalizing 
the  burdens  and  the  advantages  of  education,  and  then  pass  to 
a  consideration  of  the  various  forms  of  taxation,  other  than  local, 
which  the  different  states  have  instituted  to  supply  the  means  for 
assisting  communities  to  support  the  system  of  schools  which  the 
state  requires  to  be  maintained. 

Permanent  endowment  funds  and  general  taxation  for  educa- 
tion require  a  system  of  distribution,  worked  out  on  some  just 
basis,  which  will  enable  the  state  to  attain  the  end  for  which  these 
funds  and  taxes  exist.  Various  plans  of  distribution  are  in  use 
in  the  different  states,  the  aim  of  all  of  which  is  to  equalize,  in 
some  degree,  the  burdens  and  the  advantages  of  education. 
Some  of  these  plans  have  been  much  more  carefully  worked  out 
to  accomplish  this  purpose  than  others,  and  some  are  far  more 
just  in  their  results  than  others.  We  shall  accordingly  examine 
the  various  plans  which  may  be  used,  singly  or  combined,  to 
accomplish  these  ends. 

This  will  involve  a  discussion  of  the  theory  underlying  the  dis- 
tribution of  any  form  of  general  aid  as  well  as  the  various  type 
plans  of  distribution,  and  we  shall  try  to  determine  in  how  far 
these  type  plans  are  justifiable  on  educational  grounds,  and  what 


2O  School  Funds  and  their  Apportionment 

better  plan  or  combination  of  plans  seems  desirable.  We  shall 
maintain  that  a  state  should  not  occupy  merely  a  negative 
position,  but  should  become  an  active  agent  for  the  improvement 
of  educational  conditions  throughout  the  state.  To  do  this  the 
state  should  distribute  whatever  aid  it  has,  be  the  amount  large 
or  small,  in  such  a  manner  as  to  encourage  extra  efforts  on  the 
part  of  the  local  communities  and  to  place  a  premium  on  the 
efforts  which  communities  make  to  help  themselves.  We  shall 
next  describe  some  of  the  new  and  desirable  advantages  of  edu- 
cation which  the  state  might  well  encourage  communities  to  pro- 
vide for  their  children,  such  as  secondary  education,  manual  train- 
ing, kindergartens,  evening  schools,  and  special-class  schools,  and 
show  how  grants  for  these  may  all  be  included  in  the  general 
apportionment  plan  without  the  necessity  of  special  legislation  or 
the  grant  of  a  special  subsidy  for  each. 


CHAPTER  II 
CHANGES  IN   POPULATION,  WEALTH,  AND  EDUCATION 

A  hundred  years  ago  what  little  wealth  there  was  in  this 
country  was  comparatively  evenly  distributed.  This  condition 
continued  until  well  toward  the  middle  of  the  nineteenth  century. 
The  country  was  engaged  chiefly  in  agricultural  pursuits.  The 
people  lived  almost  wholly  on  farms  or  in  small  villages.  Wealth, 
besides  being  somewhat  evenly  distributed,  existed  nowhere  in 
large  amounts.  The  common  industries  of  the  time  were  carried 
on  in  the  small  village  or  on  the  farm.  The  business  of  the  time 
was  carried  on  in  part  by  traveling  tradesmen  and  in  part  by 
small  storekeepers  in  the  villages  or  at  the  country  cross-roads. 
Means  of  communication  were  few  and  difficult.  Railroads  had 
not  been  built.  Large  industries  had  not  been  developed  and 
centralized.  Inventions  had  not  multiplied  the  necessities  as  well 
as  the  conveniences  of  life.  Labor-saving  devices  had  not  re- 
moved the  industries  from  the  home  and  the  small  village  shop 
to  the  city  manufactory.  There  were  few  cities,  with  their 
aggregation  of  people  *  and  wealth. 

The  past  fifty  years,  however,  have  witnessed  great  changes  in 
the  method  of  living  of  our  people  and  the  growth  of  great  in- 
equalities in  the  distribution  of  the  population  and  the  wealth 
of  the  country.2  Railroads  have  been  extended  in  all  directions, 
and  where  the  railroads  have  gone  inequalities  have  generally 

1  Percentage  of  the  total  population  of  the  United  States  in  cities  of 
8,000  and  over,  by  decades. 

1790 3-35%  1830 6.72%  1870 20.93% 

1800 3-97%  1840 8.52%  1880 22.57% 

1810 4.93%  1850 13.49%  1890 29.20% 

1820  ....  4.93%  1860  ....  16.13%  1900 33.10% 

Report  of  the  I2th  Census,  1900,  Vol.  I,  Population,  Introd. 

2  The    illustrations   given   in    the   next    chapter  for   the   Massachusetts 
counties  and  towns  serve  as  good  illustrations  of  this,  as  do  those  given 
in  foot-note  number  6,  further  on  in  this  chapter. 

(21) 


22  School  Funds  and  their  Apportionment 

arisen,  due  to  the  increase  in  value  of  the  property  near  the  lines 
of  transportation  and  the  impetus  given  to  the  development  of 
towns  and  cities  along  the  line  of  the  road.  The  junction  of 
two  lines  of  railroad  has  often  been  an  additional  impetus  to  the 
development  of  a  city,  and  the  convergence  or  divergence  of  a 
number  of  lines  of  railway  from  a  single  point  has  given  rise  to  a 
trade  or  manufacturing  center.3  At  such  points  wealth  has 
accumulated  with  great  rapidity.  With  the  great  increase  in  the 
quantity  and  in  the  application  of  scientific  knowledge  there  has 
come  to  be  a  great  utilization  of  the  natural  resources  of  the 
country,  such  as  coal,  iron,  lead,  oil,  copper,  and  building  stones,4 
which  has  tended  to  emphasize  the  growing  inequalities  by  enor- 
mously increasing  the  value  of  the  regions  producing  these  articles. 
Climatic  or  geographic  conditions  have  also  made  certain  places 
very  desirable  for  residence  purposes,  often  resulting  in  enormous 
increases  in  valuation  in  these  places.5  Inventions  have  per- 
fected manufacturing  to  such  an  extent  that  the  industries  once 
practiced  in  the  villages  and  homes  all  over  the  country  are  now 
centralized  in  large  manufacturies,  located  where  power  is  cheap, 
labor  plentiful,  and  means  of  transportation  easy.  The  depart- 
ment store  in  the  city  has  taken  the  place,  likewise,  of  hundreds 
of  small  village  stores.  With  the  development  of  trade  and  in- 
dustry the  agricultural  pursuits  of  our  ancestors  have  yielded 
place  to  other  means  of  earning  a  livelihood,  and  the  farm  has  been 
depopulated  while  the  city  has  become  overcrowded.  Population 
and  wealth  are  no  longer  diffused  with  comparative  equality 

3  Chicago  or  St.  Louis  are  good  examples  of  this  on  a  large  scale,  and 
Indianapolis  on  a  somewhat  smaller  scale. 

*  The  quarries  of  Vermont  serve  as  a  good  example.  The  value  of  the 
stone  removed  and  sold  in  one  year  was  about  $7,000,000,  or  about  -^  of 
the  total  valuation  of  the  property  in  the  state.  Kept.  State  Geologist  of 
Vermont,  1904. 

The  output  of  the  bituminous  coal  mines  of  Indiana  in  1901  was  worth 
$4>337>6ocx  The  oolitic  limestone  quarried  was  worth  an  average  of  about 
$85,000  a  carload,  and  the  average  assessed  value  of  the  rough  quarry  land 
was  $392  per  acre,  or  about  ten  times  the  average  assessed  value  of  other 
lands,  ^th  Bien.  Kept.  Ind.  Bu.  of  Statistics,  1902. 

6  For  example,  Bar  Harbor  in  Maine,  Nahant  in  Massachusetts,  New- 
port in  Rhode  Island,  and  the  various  winter  resorts  of  Florida  and 
California. 


Changes  which  have  Taken  Place  23 

throughout  the  state  or  country,  but  are,  to  a  large  degree,  con- 
centrated at  a  number  of  centers  of  trade  and  industry.6 

Whether  or  not  these  changes  in  living  and  in  the  distribution 
of  population  and  wealth  have  been  advantageous  or  otherwise  it 
is  not  our  province  to  discuss,  nor  would  the  conclusion  arrived 
at  make  any  particular  difference.  Our  purpose  is  to  point  out/ 
\  the  effect  of  the  growth  of  these  inequalities  upon  the  matter  ofl 
j  the  proper  distribution  of  the  income  from  school  funds  and  the( 
results  of  taxation  for  education.  As  it  is  to-day,  some  com- 
munities have  come  to  have  a  far  greater  per-capita  wealth  than 
have  others ;  some  communities  are  constantly  increasing  their 
per-capita  wealth,  while  in  other  communities  there  is  an  actual  or 
a  relative  decrease ; 7  and  in  many  states  an  increasing  impover- 
ishment of  certain  communities  is  taking  place  while  other  com- 
munities are  rapidly  increasing  their  percapita  wealth.8 

6  A  few  examples  will  serve  to  illustrate  this  point.     The  statistics  as 
to    comparative   population    are    calculated    for    the   year    1900    from    the 
data  given  in  Vol.  i,  Population,  of  the  Kept,  of  the  I2th  U.  S.  Census. 
The    statistics    as    to    comparative    valuations    were    obtained    from    the 
assessment  figures  given  in  the  reports  of  the  State  Auditor,  Tax  Com- 
mission,  Board  of   Equalization,  or  Superintendant  of  Public  Instruction 
for  the  various  states,  and  are  for  the  year  1900  or  1901,  as  was  available. 

Boston,  not  including  unannexed  adjoining  cities,  contained  20%  of 
the  population  of  the  state  of  Massachusetts  and  39%  of  the  total  prop- 
erty valuation  of  the  state:  New  Haven,  11.9%  of  the  population  and 
20.4%  of  the  wealth  of  the  state  of  Connecticut:  Chicago,  35%  of  the 
population  and  41%  of  the  wealth  of  the  state  of  Illinois:  St.  Louis  18% 
of  the  population  and  32%  of  the  wealth  of  the  state  of  Missouri :  Indian- 
apolis, 6.7%  of  the  population  and  11.4%  of  the  wealth  of  the  state  of 
Indiana:  Milwaukee,  14%  of  the  population  and  23%  of  the  wealth  of 
the  state  of  Wisconsin :  and  San  Francisco,  not  including  a  number  of 
adjoining  residence  cities,  contained  23%  of  the  population  and  33%  of 
the  wealth  of  the  state  of  California. 

7  The  counties  of  Nantucket  and  Barnstable  in  Massachusetts,  for  ex- 
ample, have  more  than  trebled  their  wealth  per  school  census  child  in  the 
past  thirty  years,  while  the  counties  of  Dukes  and  Norfolk  have  doubled 
theirs.     Suffolk  county,    on  the  other  hand,  has   lost.     (Calculated   from 
the  "Abstracts  of  Mass.  School  Returns "  in  Repts.  Mass.  Bd.  Educ.  for 
1871  and  1901).     This  is  well  shown  by  Table  I,  Ch.  Ill,  comparing  the 
changes  of  the  different  counties  between  1871  and  1900. 

This  could  be  further  illustrated  by  statistical  comparisons  from  al- 
most every  state  in  the  Union. 

8  This    can  be    abundantly   illustrated  by   statistics.     A    few    examples, 
taken  at  random,  from  the  towns  of  Massachusetts,  will  suffice  to  illustrate 


24  School  Funds  and  their  Apportionment 

While  the  population  and  the  wealth  of  our  country  have  under- 
gone many  fluctuations  in  the  past  half  century,  the  school  sys- 
1  terns  of  the  country,  on  the  other  hand,  have  had  a  much  more 
constant  history.  Disregarding  temporary  administrative  and 
legislative  backward  tendencies,  and  the  set-back  given  education 
in  the  South  by  the  ravages  of  the  Civil  War,  the  schools,  rural, 
village,  and  city,  have  been  going  forward  steadily,  and  each  de- 
cade has  witnessed  new  demands  made  by  the  public  and  the 
state  upon  teachers,  pupils,  and  communities.  Complaints  be- 
cause of  insufficiency  have  been  met  by  new  demands  in  instruction 
and  the  appropriation  of  larger  sums  of  money  with  which  to 
work.  Schools  have  been  greatly  increased  in  number ;  school- 
houses  and  appliances  have  been  greatly  improved ;  the  material 
equipment  for  the  teaching  of  the  subjects  of  the  course  of  study 
has  been  multiplied;  new  subjects  of  instruction  have  been  in- 
troduced; the  school  year  has  been  lengthened,9  and  the  number 
of  years  of  schooling  given  have  been  increased ; 9  a  better  edu- 

the  impoverishment  of  communities.  The  calculations  have  been  made 
from  statistical  data  contained  in  the  "  Abstracts  of  the  Mass.  School  Re- 
turns "  for  the  dates  mentioned  (35th  and  65th  An.  Repts.  Mass.  Bd.  of 
Educ.)  and  the  supplemental  data  given  on  pp.  120-121  of  the  35th  Rept. 

The  town  of  Clarksburg,  Berkshire  Co.,  Mass.,  between  1871  and  1900, 
increased  in  total  population  from  686  to  943 ;  in  school  census  population, 
five  to  fifteen  years  of  age,  from  141  to  262;  and  in  number  of  schools 
maintained  from  three  to  five,  and  in  1901  a  sixth  teacher  had  to  be  added. 
The  taxable  valuation  of  the  town  decreased  in  the  meantime  from 
$244,857  to  $239,755. 

Kingston,  Plymouth  Co.,  Mass.,  is  another  example  of  the  same  ten- 
dency. Comparing  the  returns  for  1871  and  1900  we  find  that  the  total 
population  increased  from  1604  to  1955;  the  school  census  population  from 
289  to  348;  the  valuation  increased  only  from  $1,334,298  to  $1,381,970; 
w>hile  the  num'ber  of  schools  increased  from  eight  to  twelve.  The  aver- 
age taxable  valuation  has  hence  decreased  from  $4,614  to  $3,971  per  census 
child  and  from  $166,700  to  $115,164  per  school  maintained. 

Hull,  another  town  in  the  same  county,  illustrates  the  opposite  tendency. 
In  the  same  period  the  total  population  of  the  town  increased  from  261  to 
1,703 ;  the  school  census  population  from  41  to  163 ;  the  total  valuation 
from  $286,087  to  $4,118,11 1 ;  and  the  number  of  schools  from  i  to  6.  Cal- 
culating, we  find  the  valuation  per  census  child  has  increased  from  $6,977 
to  $25,264,  and  per  school  maintained  from  $286,087  to  $686,362. 

The  same  increase  or  decrease  could  -be  shown  among  the  towns  or 
counties  or  townships  of  almost  any  state  for  which  we  have  comparative 
statistics  covering  any  period  of  sufficient  length. 

9  The  "  Commissioner's  Introductory  Statement,  with  Statistics  of  SUte 


Changes  ivhich  have  Taken  Place  25 

cated  and  a  better  trained  teacher  has  been  secured; 10  the  salaries 
paid  have  been  increased,  actually  if  not  relatively;10  supervision 
has  been  instituted ;  the  "  rate-bill  "  and  the  "  fuel  tax  "  have 
been  removed,  supplies  furnished,  and  in  many  cases  text  books 
have  'been  furnished  free ;  and  the  advantages  of  higher  education 
have  been  provided  for  the  boys  and  girls  of  all  cities  and  of 
many  of  our  rural  communities.  The  result  has  been  a  great 
increase  in  the  per-capita  cost  of  education,9  in  which  the  rural 
communities  have  shared  as  well  as  the  cities,  the  poorer  com- 
munities as  well  as  the  richer  ones.  The  state  has  been  insistent 
in  its  demands,  and  the  burden  of  support  is  to-day  greater  than 
many  communities  can  meet ;  with  the  maximum  taxation  allowed 
by  law  they  are  unable  to  meet  the  minimum  demands  of  the  state. 

Illustrations  to  prove  this  could  be  found  in  the  State  School 
Reports  of  most  of  the  states  of  the  Union,  as  almost  every  state 
has  the  same  problem  to  contend  with.  A  few  examples,  selected 
at  random,  will  be  given  to  illustrate  the  point. 

In  Indiana,  in  1901-2,  the  state  paid  about  one-fourth  of  the 
expenses  of  the  school  system  by  state  taxation  and  the  income 
from  permanent  funds,  distributing  the  state  funds  on  the  basis 
of  census  children.  The  state  requires  a  minimum  of  120  days  of 
school  per  year,11  and  the  local  township  tax  was  then  limited 
to  35c.  on  the  $ioo.12  For  this  same  year,  1901-02,  the  average 
length  of  term  in  the  cities  was  179  days,  in  the  towns  153  days, 
and  in  the  townships  126  days.  The  total  average  of  all  schools 
iii  7  of  the  counties  was  less  than  the  amount  required  by  law 
for  each  school,  and  the  average  of  the  township  schools  in  21 
counties  was  below  the  legal  limit,  the  average  in  9  counties  being 
less  than  100  days,  and  in  5  counties  less  than  90  days.  On  the 
other  hand  the  township  schools  alone  in  7  counties,  after  ex- 
School  Systems,"  in  Vol.  I  of  the  Kept.  U.  S.  Com.  Educ.,  for  each  year 
gives  ample  statistical  data  on  this  point  for  each  state  and  group  of  states. 

10  Most  of  the  reports  of  the  Superintendents  of  Public  Instruction  for 
the  different  states  contain  statistical  tables  showing  the  average  salaries 
paid  men  and  women  and  the  percentage  of  trained  teachers  employed  in 
the  state  each  year. 

11  Ind.  Rev.  Stat.,  1901,  Sec.  5920  a. 

12  By  an  act  approved  March  9,  1903   (Acts  of  1903,  p.  409),  the  local 
tax  limit  was  raised  to  soc.  on  the  $100. 


26  School  Funds  and  their  Apportionment 

eluding  all  town  and  city  schools,  exceeded  an  average  of  150 
days,  and  in  3  counties  exceeded  an  average  of  160  days.13 

The  following  quotations  from  the  reports  of  the  County  Super- 
intendents of  Indiana  for  the  same  year,  contained  in  the  Report 
of  the  State  Superintendent,  further  illustrate  the  point : 

DUBOIS  COUNTY  :  "  Some  school  corporations,  even  with  a  levy  at  the 
limit  of  the  law,  cannot  reach  a  term  of  six  months."  P.  323. 

JACKSON  COUNTY  :  "  One  of  the  greatest  needs  of  Jackson  County  is 
sufficient  funds  to  run  a  six  months'  term  in  all  the  townships.  One  of 
our  townships,  with  a  levy  up  to  the  limit,  will  not  have  more  than  four 
months  school  this  year."  P.  341. 

LAWRENCE  COUNTY  :  "  Under  our  present  means  of  raising  revenue  it  is 
almost  impossible  for  some  of  the  corporations  to  maintain  a  six  months' 
term  of  school.  But  we  desire  and  need  a  much  longer  school  term,  and 
it  seems  but  fair  that  the  State  at  large  should  come  to  the  aid  of  those 
who  are  unable  to  serve  themselves."  P.  354. 

ORANGE  COUNTY:  "One-half  of  the  townships,  thus  far,  have  not  been 
able  to  conform  to  the  six  months'  school  law,  as  the  property  valuation 
is  so  low  that  even  a  35c.  levy  does  not  give  them  money  enough.  Some 
townships  will  run  to  ninety  or  one  hundred  days  only,  under  the  present 
conditions."  P.  367. 

PERRY  COUNTY:  "One  township  was  compelled  to  close  last  year  with 
a  term  of  sixty  days.  Here  is  the  problem  that  confronts  the  trustee : 
Leopold  Township  has  eight  schools.  The  daily  expense  for  tuition  is 
about  $18.  On  an  enumeration  of  326  it  will  draw  less  than  $1000  from 
the  State  school  fund.  The  law  permits  a  local  levy  of  35c.,  which  on 
$99,000  taxables  will  produce  less  than  $350.  This  exhausts  the  regular 
source  of  revenue,  and  our  schools  must  close  with  seventy  days.  This 
same  difficulty  is  present  in  every  township.  We  cannot  consolidate  be- 
cause we  'have  no  roads.  We  have  no  high  schools  because  we  have  no 
money."  Pp.  371-2. 

In  Nebraska  three  months  is  the  minimum  term  allowed  by  law 
for  districts  of  less  than  20  census  children,  six  months  for  dis- 
tricts of  20  to  75  census  children,  and  nine  months  for  all  dis- 
tricts of  over  75  census  children.14  According  to  the  Report  of 
the  State  Superintendent  of  Public  Instruction  for  1901-2,  three 
hundred  districts  maintained  less  than  a  three  months'  term,  and 
eight  hundred  and  five  more  than  three  but  less  than  six.  "  Under 
our  existing  revenue  laws  25  mills,  the  present  limit,  is  entirely 

1 *  Statistics  gathered  from  the  Kept,  of  the  Supt.  Publ.  Instr.,  Indiana, 
1902,  pp.  630,  631. 

14  School  Laws  of  Nebraska,  Subdivision  II,  Sec.  14. 


Changes  which  have  Taken  Place  27 

inadequate  for  the  needs  of  hundreds  of  districts  in  Nebraska 
that  are  voting  this  limit,  and  maintaining  from  three  to  six 
months  of  school  and  paying  their  teachers  from  $20  to  $30  per 
month."  15 

In  Missouri  the  law  provides  "  that  no  district,  city  or  town,  that 
shall  have  failed  to  afford  the  children  thereof  the  privileges  of  a 
free  school  for  at  least  six  months  during  the  year  previous  *  *, 
provided  a  tax  of  4oc.  on  the  $100  assessed  valuation,  together 
with  the  public  funds  (State  and  County)  will  maintain  the  same, 
shall  be  entitled  to  any  proportion  of  the  public  school  fund  for 
that  year.16  Notwithstanding  this  legal  requirement,  the  follow- 
ing has  been  the  result  for  the  past  three  years.17 

Year.    Av.  length  term.  Under  4  Mo.  4-6  Mos.  6-8  Mos.  8  Mos.  or  more. 

1902 143  days.  121  1045  6728  2698 

1903 144  142  1126  5787  2688 

1904 148     "  146  1073  5860  2786 

In  Massachusetts,  seven  towns  in  1902-3  failed  to  meet  the 
eight  months  required  standard.  (See  foot-note  19,  Chapter  III.) 

The  state,  on  the  contrary,  must  increase  rather  than  decrease 
its  minimum  demands.  In  many  communities  the  educational 
conditions  are  far  below  what  they  ought  to  be  to  insure  the  pre- 
valence of  ordinary  intelligence  throughout  the  state  or  to  pre- 
pare the  children  of  the  state  to  meet  the  demands  of  the  future. 
The  state  cannot  decrease  its  demands,  and  one  of  the  chief  prob- 
lems before  the  state  has  been  and  still  is  how  to  continue  in- 
creasing the  demands  for  more  and  better-  education  without  do- 
ing serious  injury  to  the  poorer  communities  by  too  greatly  in- 
creasing the  burden  of  local  taxation.  In  other  words,  the  state 
must  face  the  problem  of  how  to  more  nearly  equalize  the  op-' 
portunities  of  a  good  education  to  the  children  of  the  whole  state 
by  helping  the  poorer  communities  to  do  what  they  ought  to  do( 
but  cannot  possibly  do  alone. 

15  State    Superintendent   of    Public    Instruction   of    Nebraska,    in    1902 
Report,  Vol.  II,  p.  1000. 

16  Mo.  Rev.  Stat.,  1899,  Chap.  154,  Art.  I,  Sec.  9840. 

17  From  the  An.  Repts.  State  Supt.  Pub.  Instr.  for  Mo.,  1902,  1903,  1904. 


CHAPTER  III 

ILLUSTRATIONS  OF  EXISTING  INEQUALITIES  :  MASSACHUSETTS 

MR.  JOSEPH  WHITE,  Secretary  of  the  Massachusetts  Board  of 
Education,  called  attention  in  1871  to  the  changed  conditions  in 
Massachusetts  and  to  the  inequalities  then  existing,1  and  urged  the 
levying  of  a  state  one-half  mill  tax  to  be  used  to  partially  equalize 
the  existing  burdens  for  the  support  of  public  schools.  In  this 
report  Mr.  White  compared  the  valuations  of  the  fourteen  coun- 
ties of  the  state  with  the  number  of  school  census  children,  5  to 
15  years  of  age,  and  showed  that  while  the  state  average  for 
1871  was  $5,381.33  per  child,  the  average  of  the  counties  varied 
from  $2,393.82  to  $12,623.72  per  child. 

Comparing  the  figures  calculated  by  Mr.  White  with  figures 
calculated  in  a  similar  manner  from  the  statistical  tables  in  the 
"Abstract  of  School  Returns  "  for  the  year  1901  2  we  find  that 
the  changes  in  the  intervening  thirty  years  have  been  as  follows : 

TABLE  No.  i. 

AVERAGE    VALUATION    OF    MASSACHUSETTS    COUNTIES,    PER    CENSUS    CHILD    $-15 
YEARS   OF   AGE,    WITH    THE   RATE   OF   INCREASE   OR   DECREASE. 


County. 
Barnstable  

Census, 

5-15  years. 
1871            1901 
6,669          4,199 
13,085        17,661 

19,979        45,971 
762             584 
38,639        59,261 
6,068          7,187 
13,787        32,121 
8,665        10,312 
52,211        96,305 
665             391 
18,045        26,479 
12,846        18,619 
49,722       103,062 
37,116        60,959 

Av.  Valuation 
per  census  child. 
1871        1901 
$2,075      $5,956 
2,961        3,489 
4,317        4,173 
3,060        7,363 
3,650        4,651 
2,445        3,222 

4,015      4,707 

2,943        3,294 
4,818        5,486 
2,782        8,685 
4,642        7,974 
2,394        4,453 
12,624      11,584 
3,284        4,o68 

Rate  of  change. 
In       In  wealth 
census,   per  child. 
-37%       +186% 
+35%         +18% 
+  129%          —03% 

—  22%          -}-I4O% 

+53%         +29% 
+  18%         +32% 
+  135%         +17% 
+  19%         -\-i2% 
+84%         +13% 
—70%       +215% 
+47%         +72% 
+45%         +86% 
+  107%          —09% 
+64%         +24% 

Berkshire  

Bristol  
Dukes  

Essex 

Franklin  
Hampden      

Hampshire  
Middlesex  
Nantucket 

Norfolk  

Plymouth 

Suffolk  

Worcester     

The  State 278,249      483,103        5,381        6,279         +73%         +16% 

*  35th  An.  Kept.  Bd.  Educ.,  Mass.,  for  the  year  1871,  pp.  117-132,  with 
statistical  tables,  pp.  154-172. 
2  66th  An.  Kept.  Bd.  Educ.,  Mass.,  for  1901-2. 

(28) 


Inequalities  Existing:  Massachusetts  29 

This  table  shows  in  a  striking  manner  the  growth  of  inequalities 
in  the  distribution  of  both  school  population  and  wealth.  The 
county  preserving  the  most  nearly  equal  development  was  Hamp- 
shire, while  Bristol,  Dukes,  Nantucket,  and  Suffolk  show  the 
growth  of  marked  inequalities. 

Mr.  White  also  made  an  analysis  3  of  the  increase  or  decrease 
in  valuation,  from  1865  to  1871,  of  the  thirty-seven  towns  in  the 
state  which,  in  1871,  had  a  total  valuation  of  less  than  $300,000. 
He  showed  that  in  the  six  years  from  1865  to  1871  fifteen  towns 
had  increased  in  valuation  while  twenty-two  towns  had  decreased, 
the  net  result  of  the  thirty-seven  being  an  increase  of  less  than 
one-half  of  one  per  cent.  From  a  consideration  of  these  towns, 
and  from  a  further  consideration  of  the  statistical  tables  presented 
in  the  "Abstract  of  School  Returns  "  for  that  year  Mr.  White 
laid  down  (p.  122)  "a  general  law  of  growth  "  that  "  the  rate  of 
increase  for  the  period  named  is  in  proportion  to  the  comparative 
valuation  at  the  beginning  of  it." 

Mr.  White  also  arranged  all  the  towns  of  the  state  in  a  series 
of  tables,  showing  the  number  of  mills  of  tax  appropriated  to  the 
support  of  public  schools,  the  amount  per  census  child,  and  the 
length  of  school  term  for  each  town.  In  looking  over  this  table 
the  inequalities  in  the  rate  of  taxation  and  the  length  of  term  are 
quite  marked.  The  state  average  in  tax  shown  is  2.19  mills,  and 
the  average  school  term  is  shown  to  be  8  months  and  9  days. 
The  highest  rate,  of  5.96  mills,  with  a  school  term  of  7  months 
and  13  days,  is  found  in  the  town  of  Wellfleet,  and  the  lowest 
rate,  of  .28  mills,  with  a  school  term  of  n  months  and  5  days, 
is  found  in  the  town  of  Nahant. 

Tabulating  the  towns,  Mr.  White  showed  that : 

In      7  towns  4  the  rate  was  over  5.00  mills. 

In    28  towns  5  the  rate  was  less  than  5.00  mills  but  over  4.00  mills. 

In  114  towns     the  rate  was  less  than  4.00  mills  but  over  3.00  mills. 

3  35th  An.  Kept.  Bd.  Educ.,  Mass.,  for  1871. 

4  Four  of  these  had  a  valuation  of  less  than  $275,000  and  a  term  of 
from  6  to  6K  months. 

5  Six  of  these  had  a  valuation  of  less  than  $210,000,  and  the  term  of 
four  was  6  months,  of  one  6  months   and  3  days,  and  of  the  other  7 
months. 


30  School  Funds  and  their  Apportionment 

In  145  towns  °  the  rate  was  less  than  3.00  mills  but  over  2.00  mills. 
In    34  towns  7  the  rate  was  less  than  2.00  mills  but  over  i.oo  mill. 
In      2  towns      the  rate  was  less  than  i.oo  mill. 

In  length  of  school  term,  six  months  at  that  time  being  required 
by  law,  the  tabulation  was  as  follows : 

18  towns  had  a  term  of  less  than  6  months. 

29  towns  had  a  term  of  6  months. 

73  towns  had  a  term  of  over  6  but  not  over    7  months. 

67  towns  had  a  term  of  over  7  but  not  over    8  months. 

60  towns  had  a  term  of  over  8  but  not  over    9  months. 

44  towns  had  a  term  of  over  9  but  not  over  10  months. 

39  towns  7  had  a  term  of  over  10  months. 

From  a  study  of  the  tables  presented,  Mr.  White  declared  "  that 
the  amount  appropriated  to  each  pupil  and  the  average  length  of 
the  schools  are  the  lowest  in  those  towns  where  the  rate  of 
taxation  is  the  highest ;  and  the  burden,  measured  in  this  way,  of 
maintaining  these  schools  in  a  number  of  the  rural  towns  is 
three-fold  greater  than  in  many  of  the  wealthy  cities  and  large 
towns."  (p.  124.)  Concluding,  Mr.  White  said  that  "these 
burdens,  borne  not  for  the  good  of  individuals  or  of  the  towns 
alone,  but  chiefly  in  furtherance  of  the  common  weal,  should  be 
in  some  good  measure  equalized." 

Since  1871  the  cities  have  increased  the  quantity  and  kinds  of 
the  education  given;  have  lost  (1874)  their  State  aid;  and  the 
burdens  of  the  smaller  towns  have  been  equalized  in  part,  so  that 
a  comparison  of  the  same  towns  is  no  longer  possible,  and  Mr. 
White's  second  "  general  law  "  no  longer  holds.  Still,  notwith- 
standing the  great  development  of  education  in  the  cities,  Boston, 
including  Charleston,  had  in  1901-02  a  school  tax  rate  of  but 
2.39  mills,  Brookline  1.91  mills,  New  Bedford  3.46  mills,  Fall 
River  3.89  mills,  and  the  remainder  of  the  eleven  cities  men- 
tioned in  the  foot-note  are  all  less  than  5.00  mills,  Worcester,  with 
4.61  mills  being  the  highest.8 

6  Included    Cambridge,    New    Bedford,    Worcester,    Charleston,    Salem, 
Springfield,  and  Lynn. 

7  Included  Boston,  Fall  River,  and  Brookline. 

These  two  groups  (6  and  7)  represent  every  city  in  the  State  in  1871  of 
over  $20,000,000  valuation  except  Lowell,  whose  rate  was  3.15  mills.  None 
of  these  cities  had  less  than  a  10  months'  term,  while  five  had  iol/2 
months  and  three  had  10^  months. 

8  66th  An.  Kept.  Bd.  Educ.,  Mass.,  1901-02.    Graduated  Valuation  Table, 
No.  II.     See  also  Table  No.  5,  further  on  in  this  chapter. 


Inequalities  Existing:  Massachusetts  31 

Taking  the  same  thirty-seven  towns  studied  by  Mr.  White  9 
and  comparing  their  valuations  for  1871  with  the  valuations  10 
for  1900  we  find  that  in  the  intervening  period  twenty-six  towns 
have  decreased  in  valuation  while  eleven  towns  have  increased, 
the  amount  of  decrease  of  the  twenty-six  being  more  than  half 
the  total  valuation  of  the  thirty-seven  towns  in  1871.  Mr.  White's 
"  general  law  of  growth  "  holds  true  generally,  though  not  in  all 
cases,  as  a  few  of  the  towns  which  had  increased  in  valuation  in 
the  preceding  period  have  decreased  since  1871,  and  vice  versa. 

Any  reasoning  as  to  educational  conditions  and  possibilities, 
however,  which  is  based  on  mere  changes  in  valuations  would  be 
unsound.  The  loss  in  school  census  and  in  number  of  schools 
maintained  might  perhaps  be  more  rapid  than  the  loss  in  valua- 
tion, resulting  in  a  per  capita  or  a  per  school  increase  in  prop- 
erty taxable  for  school  maintenance,  and  it  is  necessary  to  com- 
pare educational  needs  and  demands  as  well  as  property  values.11 

9  35th  An.  Rept.  Bd.  Educ.,  Mass.,  for  1871. 

10  65th  An.  Rept.  Bd.  Educ.,  Mass.,  for  1900-01. 

11  The   town   of   Windsor,   in    Berkshire   County,    illustrates   this   point. 
Comparing  the  statistical  returns  for  the  years  1871  and  1900  we  find  that 
the  total  population  decreased  from  686  ito  507,  its  school  census  population 
decreased    from    144  to  80,  the   total   valuation   decreased    from  $297,053 
to  $195,276,  and  the  number  of  schools  maintained  decreased  from  9  to  7. 
Figured  out  on  a  per  capita  of  school  census  basis  the  valuation  of  the 
town    really    increased    in    the    twenty-nine    years    from    $20.63    to    $24.40 
per  census  child,  buit,  figured  out  on  the  basis  of  the  number  of  schools  the 
town    maintained,   the   taxable   valuation   per    school    (teacher   employed), 
which  is  the  real  test,  .had  decreased  from  $33,006  to  $27,896  per  school 
maintained. 

The  town  of  Montgomery,  in  Hampden  County,  is  another  example. 
Comparing  the  statistics  for  the  year  1871  with  1900  we  find  that  the  total 
population  decreased  from  318  to  273;  the  school  census  population,  5  to 
15  years  of  age,  from  69  to  58,  and  the  valuation  from  $152,800  to  $140,598, 
while  the  average  valuation  per  census  child  increased  from  $22.14  to  $24.24. 
But  the  number  of  schools  maintained,  5,  is  the  same  in  1901  as  in  1871, 
and  hence  the  assessable  valuation  per  school  maintained  has  decreased 
from  $30,560  to  $28,120. 

The  town  of  Prescott,  in  Hampshire  County,  shows  the  same  result  for 
the  same  period.  The  total  population  decreased  from  541  to  380,  the  school 
population  from  92  to  63,  the  valuation  from  $213,798  to  $164,223,  while  the 
average  valuation  per  census  child  increased  from  $23.24  to  $26.07.  But  the 


32  School  Funds  and  their  Apportionment 

To  make  such  a  comparison  we  must  use  the  school  census,  the 
school  enrollment  or  attendance,  or  the  number  of  schools  (teach- 
ers; departments)  maintained.  School  census  is  not  a  safe  basis, 
because  the  number  of  children  who  might  attend  each  of  the 
town's  schools  might  decrease  a  half  or  more  without  the  town 
being  able  to  discontinue  the  maintenance  of  any  of  its  schools. 
Enrollment  and  average  daily  attendance  are  open  to  the  same 
objections  for  such  a  comparison.  The  number  of  teachers  em- 
ployed is  the  best  basis  of  comparison,  when  dealing  with  small 
towns,  as  the  chief  cost  of  maintaining  schools  is  the  amount 
paid  for  the  salary  of  the  teacher. 

Taking  the  same  thirty-seven  poor  towns  studied  by  Mr.  White 
and  calculating  the  changes  in  thirty  years  in  valuations  and 
number  of  teachers  employed,  calculating  the  average  taxable 
valuation  per  school  (department;  teacher)  maintained  by  the 
town  in  1900-01,  and  the  rate  of  town  tax  in  mills  which  would 
have  been  required  to  raise  by  local  taxation  the  sum  of  $250  per 
teacher  12  employed,  assuming  no  delinquent  tax-payers,  we  get 
the  following  comparative  table : 

number  of  schools  maintained  decreased  only  from  6  to  5,  giving  a  real 
decrease  in  valuation  per  school  maintained  from  $35,663  to  $32,844. 

Hundreds  of  additional  examples  of  this  tendency  might  be  given  from 
the  statistical  data  published  by  the  various  states. 

12  The  sum  of  $250,  assumed  somewhat  arbitrarily  as  a  basis  for  tax-rate 
comparisons,  is  certainly  a  minimum  amount  on  which  a  school  can  be 
managed  for  a  year.  While  schools  may  be  conducted  for  less,  and  in  many 
states  are  conducted  for  less,  they  certainly  ought  not  to  be.  This  amount, 
$250,  will  be  used  as  a  basis  for  comparison  throughout  this  and  succeeding 
chapters,  and  »will  serve  this  purpose  as  well  as  any  other  amount.  The 
tax-rate  required  to  produce  any  larger  amount  can  be  found  by  a  sknple 
process,,  of  multiplication. 


Inequalities  Existing:  Massachusetts 


33 


TABLE  No.  2. 

RELATIVE  CHANGES   IN   VALUATIONS   AND  NUMBER  OF   SCHOOLS    MAINTAINED  IN- 
THIRTY-SEVEN    MASSACHUSETTS   TOWNS,    iSyi-IQOI. 

(Calculated  from  the  "Abstracts  of  School  Returns"  in  the  35th  and  65th 
An.  Repts.  Bd.  Educ.,  Mass.  The  valuations  are  those  for  1871  and  1900, 
while  the  number  of  schools  maintained  is  taken  for  1870-71  and  1900-01). 


Change 

Town.  in 

Valuation. 

Mt.  Washington —5% 

Monroe -(-194% 

Eastham +70% 

New  Ashford —51% 

Peru —40% 

Gosnold +46% 

Hawley — 15% 

Rowe — 2% 

Holland —48% 

Montgomery — 8% 

Goshen — 6% 

Truro -\-2.6% 

Alford —44% 

Clarksburg —3% 

Florida —26% 

Monterey — 20% 

Savoy —45% 

Tyringham —21% 

Windsor — 34% 

Chilmark — 25% 

Heath —39% 

Leyden —13% 

Schutesbury — 11% 

Warwick +51% 

Wendell -fl8^° 

Russell -|- 79% 

Tolland —60% 

Greenwich — 15% 

Pelham — 10% 

Prescott —23% 

Boxborough — 4% 

Dunstable -j-3% 

Hull -4-1370% 

Plympton +13% 

Dana -|-I3% 

Phillipston — 5% 

Plainfield — 29% 


Change 
in  No.  of 

Schools. 


-J-IOO% 
—25% 
—50% 


-33% 

—17% 

-75% 

o% 

-25% 
—25% 

0% 

-J-40% 
— 16% 

—37% 
—33% 
—50% 

—22% 

-33% 
— 16% 

0% 

—43% 
—50% 

—20% 
0% 

-50% 
—33% 

-j-20% 

— 16% 
o% 

—60% 

-|-6oo% 

—50% 

—20% 

—37% 
—17% 


radle  Valuation      Rate  of  tax 
00)  per  School        for  $250  per 

)  Maintained.13        Teacher. 

$47,017 

5.32 

mills. 

36,744 

7.00 

"• 

106,160 

2.35 

" 

27,085 

9.26 

" 

40,083 

6.25 

" 

230,678 

1.09 

U 

24,389 

10.25 

" 

35,122 

7.11 

" 

78,383 

3.20 

" 

28,120 

8.88 

" 

45,266 

5-53 

" 

57,130 

4-35 

" 

55,438 

4-52 

a 

47,951 

5-21 

l( 

30,232 

8.27 

u 

45,369 

5-51 

" 

26,185 

9-54 

" 

73,906 

3-40 

" 

27,896 

8.00 

" 

109,342 

2.28 

ft 

22,134 

11.62 

" 

39,783 

6.30 

M 

44,509 

5.63 

M 

85,394 

2.93 

(( 

59,946 

4.16 

" 

81,801 

3-06 

tt 

45,932 

5-40 

" 

62,990 

3-97 

" 

37,067 

6-75 

" 

32,845 

7.62 

" 

59,276 

4.22 

M 

148,305 

1.68 

M 

686,362 

.36 

M 

110,362 

2.27 

N 

61,104 

4.09 

" 

91,670 

2.73 

M 

36,108 

6-93 

M 

18  The  addition  of  another  teacher  in  1901-02  made  the  following  reduc- 


34  School  Funds  and  their  Apportionment 

The  growth  of  inequalities,  as  shown  by  this  table,  is  indeed 
interesting.  An  inspection  of  the  first  two  columns  of  the  table 
will  show  that  seven  towns  increased  their  wealth  and  at  the  same 
time  decreased  the  number  of  their  schools,14  thus  making 
substantial  gains,  while  two  towns  did  the  opposite ;  five  towns 
decreased  in  wealth  but  with  no  reduction  in  the  number  of 
schools  maintained,  while  two  towns  increased  in  wealth  with- 
out increasing  the  number  of  schools;  twelve  towns  were 
able  to  decrease  the  number  of  schools  maintained  faster  than 
the  wealth  of  the  town  decreased,  thus  making  an  actual  gain, 
while  in  seven  towns  the  wealth  decreased  faster  than  the  num- 
ber of  schools.  The  most  remarkable  changes  in  the  list  were 
made  by  the  towns  of  Monroe,  Eastham,  Warwick,  Russell,  and 
Hull. 

No  account  is  taken  here  of  the  increased  cost  of  education  in 
the  intervening  thirty  years,  which  should  not  be  neglected,  be- 
cause it  has  almost  doubled.  In  1870-71,  the  average  taxation 
cost  for  the  support  alone  of  public  schools  for  each  child,  5  to 
15  years  of  age,  in  the  State  of  Massachusetts,  was  $11.76  ;15 
in  1900-01,  it  was  $22.69. 16  This  is  an  increase  of  93%.  To 
compare  the  rate  of  tax  in  mills  required  in  1871  with  that  re- 
quired in  1900  we  should  calculate  the  rate  in  mills  necessary  to 
produce  $130  per  teacher  on  the  valuation  of  1871  and  put  it  by 
the  side  of  the  rate  necessary  to  produce  $250  per  teacher  in  1900. 
This  will  give  a  comparison  of  what  was  demanded  for  1871  with 
what  was  demanded  for  1900,  based  on  the  average  cost  of 
maintaining  equivalent  schools.  Making  such  calculations  for 
the  first  six  towns  of  Table  No.  2  we  get  the  following  results : 

tions :  Peru,  to  $28,625 ;  Clarksburg,  to  $40,403 ;  Wendell,  to  $47,045 ;  and 
Tolland,  to  $29,661.  This  would  cause  a  corresponding  change  in  the  rate 
of  tax  required  to  produce  $250. 

14  By  schools  here,  as  elsewhere  throughout  these  chapters,  we  mean  the 
number  of  teachers    (departments)    actually  employed  in  instruction,   and 
not  the  number  of  school  buildings,  which  would  have  no  meaning. 

15  35th  An,  Kept.  Bd.  Educ.,  Mass.,  for  the  year  1871,  p.  95.     The  in- 
come from  surplus  revenues  and  other  funds,  equal  to  2.3  cents,  has  been 
deducted  from  the  amount  given  for  1870-71  to  make  the  comparison  more 
exact. 

16  65th  An.  Rept.  Bd.  Educ.,  Mass.,  for  the  year  1900-01. 


Inequalities  Existing:  Massachusetts  35 

Rate  of  tax  required  to  produce,  per  teacher: 

Town.  $130  in  1871.  $250  in  1900. 

Mt.  Washington 2.61  mills.  5.32  mills. 

Monroe 5.18      "  7.00 

Eastham 2.76      "  2.35      " 

New  Ashford 2.26      "  9.26       " 

Peru 3.66      "  6.26       " 

Gosnold 77      "  1.09      " 

The  third  column  of  Table  No.  2  shows  the  great  extremes  at 
present  existing  in  the  taxable  valuation  per  school  maintained, 
ranging  from  $22,134  per  school  in  the  town  of  Heath  to  $686,362 
per  school  in  the  town  of  Hull.  The  fourth  column  shows  the 
relative  ability  of  the  towns  to  support  a  school  costing  $250 
wholly  by  local  taxation. 

In  1901  the  Secretary  of  the  Massachusetts  State  Board  of 
Education,  in  discussing  the  distribution  of  state  aid  to  the  towns 
of  Massachusetts,  presented  detailed  statistical  tables  17  to  show 
the  relative  condition  of  the  cities  and  towns  at  that  time,  giv- 
ing valuation,  average  membership  in  the  schools,  valuation  per 
pupil  in  average  membership,  tax  rate,  and  cost  per  capita  for 
each  of  the  three  hundred  fifty-five  cities  and  towns  of  the 
state.  Selecting  from  the  table  the  four  highest  and  the  four 
lowest  towns,  and  comparing  these  with  the  average  for  Boston 
and  the  State  of  Massachusetts,  we  get  the  following  table : 

TABLE  No.  3. 

A   COMPARISON    OF   THE   FOUR    MASSACHUSETTS    TOWNS    HAVING    THE    HIGHEST 

AND   THE   LOWEST   AVERAGE  TAXABLE  VALUATION    PER  PUPIL   IN   AVERAGE 

MEMBERSHIP,    WITH   THE   CITY   OF   BOSTON   AND   WITH   THE 

AVERAGE  FOR  THE   STATE  OF    MASSACHUSETTS. 


Va> 
Town  or  city,             pu 
Me 
The  four  highest  — 

Nahant 

luation  per 
pil  in  Av. 
mbership. 

$42,921 
28,918 
23,8l6 
23,653 

728 
1,432 
1,643 
1,683 

7,200 

14,151 

Local  tax 
rate  for 
schools. 

1.18  mills. 

1.36        " 
1.29 

1.74 

4.40      " 
5.65      " 
748      " 
6.54      " 
3-62      " 
2.32      " 

Per  cent  of       Cost  per  pupil 
all  taxes  for       in  Av.  Memb. 
schools.       for  maintenance. 

15%                 $50.77 
08%                39-37 
16%                30.94 
17%                41-29 

44%                 3-2i 
28%                 8.09 
48%                12.30 
32%               11.01 
23%               26.06 
18%               32.86 

Hull 

Manchester  
Brookline 

The  four  lowest  — 
Gay  Head 

Clarksburg 

East  Longmeadow.. 
Heath 

Average  for  the  State. 
City  of  Boston  

17  64th  An.  Rept.  Bd.  Educ.,  Mass.,  1899-1900,  pp.  267-298. 


36  School  Funds  and  their  Apportionment 

A  compilation  of  the  data  given  in  this  same  Report 18  for  all 
the  cities  and  towns  of  the  state,  selected  on  the  basis  of  tax- 
able valuation  per  child  in  average  membership  in  the  schools 
for  the  preceding  year,  gives  the  following: 

TABLE  No.  4. 

PROPERTY    VALUATION    PER    PUPIL    IN    AVERAGE    MEMBERSHIP    OF    THE    MASSA- 
CHUSETTS  TOWNS    AND   CITIES   FOR    1899. 

Valuation.            No.  of  Towns.             Valuation.              No.  of  Towns. 
Less  than  $i,ooo i  $10,000  to  $11 ,000 i 

$1,000  tO  $2,000 12         $11,000  to  $I2,OOO 4 

$2,000  to  $3,000 64  $12,000  to  $13,000 i 

$3,000  to  $4,000 102  $13,000  to  $14,000 i 

$4,000  to  $5,000 68  $14,000  to  $15,000 2 

$5,000  to  $6,000 40  $17,000  to  $18,000.  *. 4 

$6,OOO  tO  $7,OOO 27         $23,000  tO  $24,000 2 

$7,000  to  $8,000 10  $28,000  to  $29,000 i 

$8,000  to  $9,000 9  $42,000  to  $43,000 i 

$9,000  to  $10,000 5 

An  inspection  of  the  tabulation  given  in  this  Report 18  shows 
that  no  town  or  city  with  a  total  valuation  of  more  than  $i,- 
000,000  had  a  valuation  per  child  in  average  membership  in  the 
schools  of  less  than  $2,000;  no  town  of  over  $10,000,000  had  a 
valuation  of  less  than  $3,000;  and  no  town  of  over  $150,000,000 
had  a  valuation  of  less  than  $5,000  per  child  in  average  member- 
ship. On  the  contrary,  only  one  town  with  a  total  valuation 
of  less  than  $500,000  had  a  pupil  valuation  of  over  $7,000;  no 
town  of  less  than  $2,000,000  total  valuation  had  a  pupil  valuation 
of  over  $12,000.  Twelve  towns  above  $3,000,000  total  valuation 
had  a  pupil  valuation  of  over  $12,000.  In  general,  the  wealthier 
the  town  the  larger  its  per  capita  wealth  for  each  pupil  in  aver- 
age membership  in  the  schools. 

The  presence  of  great  inequalities  is  shown  also  by  selecting 
the  seven  towns  and  cities  which  for  1901-02  levied  the  high- 
est rate  of  local  tax,  the  seven  which  levied  the  lowest  rate,  and 
the  seven  largest  cities  of  the  state,  and  then  comparing  these 
twenty-one  cities  and  towns  with  reference  to  the  rate  of  tax 
levied  and  the  amount  produced  per  pupil.  The  following  table 
shows  such  a  comparison. 

18  64th  An.  Rept.  Bd.  Educ.,  Mass.,  1899-1900,  pp.  272-296. 


Inequalities  Existing:  Massachusetts  37 

TABLE  No.  5- 

RATE  OF   TAX   LEVIED  AND   AMOUNT   PRODUCED,    WITH   RELATIVE  RANK,   OF 
TWENTY-ONE    MASSACHUSETTS   TOWNS    AND   CITIES,    I9OI-02. 

(Data  selected   from  Graduated  Tables  I  and  II  in  66th  An.  Rept.  Bd. 
Educ.,  Mass.,  1901-02,  in  "Abstract  of  School  Returns"  for  the  year.) 

Rank  in  Rate  of         Amt.  produced  Per    Rank  in 

City  or  Town.*                             amount              local  tax  pupil  in  Av.  amount 
levied.                  levied.           Memb.  in  school,     produced. 

Seven  levying  highest  rate — 

West  Boylston I  9.20  mills.  $22.33  J3i 

Warren 2  8.79      "  19.17  216 

East  Longmeadow 3  8.56  14.17  303 

Huntington 4  8.50      *  15.88  277 

Groveland 5  8.29      "  18.92  221 

Dighton 6  8.18      "  24.11  95 

Abington 7  7-94      "  25.44  75 

Seven  largest  cities . . 

Boston 333  2.39      "  33.86  15 

Worcester 192  4.61       "  28.45  40 

Fall  River 260  3.89      "  22.03  137 

Lowell 194  4.58      "  30.73  21 

Cambridge 219  4.33       "  29.51  28 

Lynn 196  4.56       "  28.65  38 

New   Bedford 287  3.46      "  26.99  42 

Seven  levying  lowest  rate — 

Brookline 346  1.91       "  51.68  3 

Hull 347  1.73      "  45-75  7 

Tolland 348  1.61      "  4.00  350 

Goshen 349  1.50      "  4.43  351 

Manchester 350  1.37      "  33-72  16 

Chilmark 351  1.31       "  9.37  343 

Nahant 352  i.io      "  52.10  2 

Gosnold 353                .85      "  10.53  336 

*  The  poorer  towns  received  state  aid  in  addition,  which  the  cities  did  not. 

The  various  tables  which  we  have  so  far  presented  show  how 
easy  it  is  for  the  wealthier  towns  and  cities  of  Massachusetts  to 
maintain  their  extensive  school  systems,  and  what  a  burden  it 
would  be  to  many  of  the  poorer  towns  to  comply,  unaided,  with 
the  requirements  of  the  laws  of  the  state  relating  to  the  main- 
tenance of  schools.19  Even  the  little  state  aid  that  is  received 

19  In  1901-02  seven  towns  failed  to  maintain  an  8-months  school.  The 
lowest  local  tax  rate  in  any  of  these  towns  was  3.62  mills  and  the  high- 
est 5.58  mills.  In  addition  each  received  state  aid  or  aid  from  other 
sources  in  approximately  the  following  proportions  to  the  entire  expense 
for  schools:  \}  f,  J,  fa  |}  fa  |.  66th  An.  Rept.  Bd.  Educ.,  Mass., 
1902-03,  p.  80,  and  statistical  tables. 


38  School  Funds  and  their  Apportionment 

by  the  poorer  towns  must  be  very  welcome.  It  can  easily  be 
seen  from  the  tables  that  the  maintenance  of  schools  by  local 
taxation  even  in  as  wealthy  and  well  settled  a  state  as  Massachu- 
setts,20 is  only  possible  by  often  requiring  very  large  sacrifices 
from  those  who  have  little  and  very  small  sacrifices  from  those 
who  have  much,  while,  as  Mr.  White  so  well  said  over  thirty  years 
ago,  the  carrying  of  these  burdens  is  "  not  for  the  good  of  in- 
dividuals or  of  the  towns  alone,  but  chiefly  in  furtherance  of  the 
common  weal,  and  should  be  in  some  good  measure  equalized." 

We  have  dealt,  at  some  length,  with  the  growth  and  existence 
of  inequalities  in  Massachusetts,  and  for  many  reasons.  Massa- 
chusetts is,  after  Rhode  Island,  the  most  densely  populated  state 
in  the  Union,  and  this  makes  possible  the  maintenance  of 
schools,  of  the  same  kind,  at  a  much  smaller  average  per  capita 
cost  than  is  possible  in  the  more  sparsely  settled  states  of  the 
Mississippi  Valley  or  the  West.  Massachusetts  has  a  very  large 
per  capita  wealth  and  the  schools  are  supported  largely  by  local 
taxation  (over  97%  of  the  revenue  comes  from  this  source),  and 
the  town  unit,  corresponding  in  a  certain  sense  to  a  western 
township,  offers  a  unit  small  enough  for  the  study  of  local  in- 
equalities and  local  taxing  power.  Another  good  reason  for 
using  the  State  of  Massachusetts  is  that  the  "Abstract  of  School 
Returns,"  published  by  the  State  Board  of  Education,  is  among 
the  best  printed  by  any  state,  and  contains  detailed  information 
of  the  kind  needed  for  such  a  study. 

The  demands  made  by  the  state  upon  all  the  schools,  too,  are 
more  nearly  uniform  in  Massachusetts  than  one  finds  elsewhere. 
All  towns  are  required  by  law  to  maintain  their  schools  eight 
months  each  year; 21  every  school  in  the  state  is  required  by  law 
C\to  be  under  the  supervision  of  a  superintendent  of  schools,  paid 
by  the  towns  or  cities;22  every  town  of  five  hundred  families 
must  maintain  a  high  school 23  and  all  other  towns  must  pay  high 

20  After   Rhode  Island  the  most  densely  populated  state  in  the  Union. 
Average   density  of  population    (i2th  census,   1900),   348.9  people  to  the 
square  mile. 

21  Rev.  Laws  of  1901,  Chap.  42,  Sec.  i.     Towns  with  a  valuation  of  less 
than  $200,000  may  foe  excused  with  seven  months. 

22  Rev.  Laws  of  1901,  Chap.  42,  Sec.  40. 
28  Ibid.,  Chap.  42,  Sec.  2. 


Inequalities  Existing:  Massachusetts  39 

school  tuition  for  their  pupils ; 24  and  all  towns  are  required  to 
"  raise  by  taxation  money  necessary  for  the  support  of  schools,"  " 
with  no  legal  limit  on  the  amount  that  may  be  raised,  and  under 
penalty  for  failure  to  do  so,  of  forfeiting  "  an  amount  equal  to 
twice  the  highest  sum  ever  before  voted  for  the  support  of  schools 
therein."  26  The  fact  that  Massachusetts  can  make  and  enforce 
such  demands  upon  all,  demands  which  most  states  would  find 
themselves  unable  to  enact  into  law  or  to  enforce  if  so  enacted, 
gives  one  the  right  to  assume  that  the  inequalities  in  taxing 
power  existing  in  Massachusetts  are  certainly  not  greater  than 
the  inequalities  met  with  elsewhere,  while  it  is  probable  that  they 
are  less  marked  in  Massachusetts  than  in  most  of  the  central 
and  western  states. 

We  shall  next  examine  selected  groups  in  a  few  other  states,  the 
State  School  Reports  of  which  give  sufficient  statistical  data, 
with  a  view  to  ascertaining  the  nature  of  the  inequalities  which 
exist  elsewhere. 

2*  Ibid.,  Chap.  42,  Sec.  3. 
25  Ibid.,  Chap.  42,  Sec.  22. 
28  Ibid.,  Chap.  42,  Sec.  23. 


CHAPTER  IV 
INEQUALITIES  EXISTING  IN  OTHER  STATES 

THE  widely  differing  ability  of  the  various  Massachusetts  towns 
and  cities  to  support  their  schools  by  local  taxation,  as  shown  in 
the  preceding  chapter,  may  be  shown  equally  well  for  almost  any 
state  for  which  we  have  sufficient  statistical  data.  In  our  ex- 
amination as  to  the  existence  of  inequalities  in  other  states  we 
shall  first  take  the  State  of  Connecticut,  a  state  with  conditions 
somewhat  analogous  to  those  of  Massachusetts,  and  a  state  whose 
annual  school  report  likewise  contains  very  valuable  statistical 
information. 

The  following  table  shows  the  conditions  existing  in  the  dif- 
ferent counties  of  the  State  of  Connecticut. 

TABLE  No.  6. 

AN   ANALYSIS   OF  THE   SCHOOL   RETURNS    FOR   THE  DIFFERENT   CONNECTICUT 
COUNTIES   FOR  THE   SCHOOL   YEAR    I9OI-IQ02. 

(Calculated  from  data  given  in  the  Statistical  Tables  in  the  An.  Kept. 
Conn.  Bd.  Educ.  for  1903. 

No.  of  Total  Census,  4-16  Valuation 

Counties.                 towns.  valuation.  yrs.    Oct.,  1901.  per  child. 

Hartford 29  $125,282,881  42,222  $2,965 

New  Haven 26  187,099,038  63,324  2,954 

New  London 21  39,265,200  18,006  2,180 

Fairfield 23  127,408,654  42,682  2,985 

Windham 15  18,445,546  9,891  1,867 

Litchfield 26  33,529,789  14,090  2,379 

Middlesex 15  19,085,059  8,443  2,260 

Tolland 13  12,573,995  5,334  2,357 


The  State $562,690,162  203,992  $2,759 

(40) 


Counties. 
Hartford      

TABLE  No.  6  (( 

No.  of 
schools. 
(Depts.} 

...      835 

CONTINUED). 

Av.  valuation 
per  school. 
(Dept.) 
$150,039 
172,441 
95,061 
1  75,494 
93J59 
94,985 
99,40i 
84,389 

New  Haven  

1,085 

412 

New  London 

Fairfield                 

726 

Windham       

198 

Litchfield 

-2C-J 

Middlesex  

192 

Tolland 

140 

Inequalities  Existing  in  other  States  41 


Rate  of  tax 
in  mills  for 

$250. 
1.66  mills. 

1-45 
2.63 

1.42  " 
2.68  " 
2.63 

2.51  " 
2.97 

The   State 3,950  $142,453  1.75  mills. 

An  examination  of  the  columns  giving  the  average  taxable 
valuation  per  school  (teacher  employed)  and  the  rate  of  local  tax 
that  would  be  required  to  produce  $250  per  teacher,  in  the  differ- 
ent counties,  assuming  no  delinquents,  shows  five  counties  of  about 
the  same  average  wealth  and  three  counties  very  much  richer  than 
the  average.  These  three  richer  counties  contain  two-thirds  of 
the  population  and  four-fifths  of  the  wealth  of  the  entire  state, 
and  also  contain  nine  of  the  ten  cities  of  the  state  having  a 
population  of  over  17,0x30,  and  eight  of  the  ten  wealthiest  cities 
of  the  state.  The  city  of  New  Haven,  alone,  contains  11.9%  of 
the  total  population  and  20.4%  of  the  state's  entire  wealth.1 

The  county  averages,  however,  do  not  give  any  real  idea  as  to 
the  extremes  in  valuation  and  the  corresponding  ability  or  in- 
ability of  the  towns  to  properly  support  a  school  by  local  taxa- 
tion. To  show  these  extremes,  we  have  only  to  analyse,  in  a 
similar  manner,  any  one  of  these  counties  by  towns.  Doing  this, 
and  taking  for  the  purpose  the  county  having  the  lowest  (Wind- 
ham)  and  the  one  having  the  highest  (Fairfield)  average  valu- 
ation per  census  child,  we  get  the  results  shown  by  the  fol- 
lowing tables : 

1  These  facts  and  percentages  are  for  the  year  1901-02,  and  have  been 
calculated  from  data  given  in  the  statistical  tables  of  the  Rept.  Conn.  Bd. 
of  Educ.  for  1903. 


School  Funds  and  their  Apportionment 


TABLE  No.  7. 

AN    ANALYSIS    OF    THE    RETURNS    FOR    WINDHAM     COUNTY,    CONNECTICUT,    FOR 
THE    SCHOOL    YEAR    IQOI-O2. 

(Calculated  from  data  given  in  the  Kept.  Conn.  Ed.  Educ.  for  1903,  statis- 
tical tables,  pp.  262,  263,  275,  and  284.) 


Towns. 


Total 
Valuation. 


Brooklyn $1,263,092 

Ashford 208,137 

Canterbury 375,597 

Chaplin 173,277 

Eastford 155,984 

Hampton 283,850 

Killingly 2,080,745 

Plainfield 1,940,341 

Pomfret 1,129,461 

Putnam 3,144,294 

Scotland 192,905 

Sterling 459,827 

Thompson 1,996,749 

Windham 4,219,464 

Woodstock 821,823 


Census  4-16  yrs. 
Oct.,  1901. 

510 


156 

102 

103 

124 

1,548 

1,177 

328 

1,459 
88 

257 
1,423 
2,145 

356 


The  County $18,445,546 


Valuation 
per  child. 

$2,476 
1,809 
2,407 
1,698 
1,514 
2,28.1 

i,344 
1,648 

3,433 
2,155 
2,192 
1,789 
1,403 
1,967 
2,336 

$1,867 


No.  of  schools. 
(Depts.) 

10 

7 
ii 

3 

4 

7 

30 

22 

9 

17 

2 

8 

20 
36 
12 


I98 


TABLE  No.  7  (CONTINUED). 

Av.  valuation  Rate  of  tax  Rate  of  local  Cost  per  pupil  in 

Towns.                Per  school.                 in  mills                     tax  levied,  Av.  Dy.  Att.  for 

(Dept.)                   for  $250.                        1901-02.  Maint.  1901-02. 

Brooklyn $126,309  1.98  mills.  3.11  mills.  $32.22 

Ashford 29,734  8.41       "  4.03      "  18.59 

Canterbury 34,145  7-33  4-24  18.27 

Chaplin 57,759  4-32  4-7O  21.30 

Eastford 38,996  6.25      "  2.44  11.14 

Hampton 40,550  6.17  4.57  18.95 

Killingly 69,358  3.61       "  7.64      "  23.86 

Plainfield 88,297  2.83      "  3.98      "  17.72 

Pomfret 125,495  1.99      "  2.29      "  19.43 

Putnam 184,958  1.35       "  4.05       "  26.49 

Scotland 96,453  2.59      "  4.96  25.49 

Sterling 57,478  4-35       "  4-73  15-92 

Thompson 99,837  2.54      "  2.97  21.93 

Windham 117,207  2.13      "  6.48  32.79 

Woodstock 68,485  3.65      "  4.07      "  24.99 


The  County $93,159 


2.68 


$24.47 


Inequalities  Existing  in  other  States 


43 


TABLE  No.  8. 

AN   ANALYSIS  OF  THE  RETURNS  FOR  FAIRFIELD  COUNTY,  CONNECTICUT,  FOR  THE 
SCHOOL   YEAR   IQOI-O2. 

(Calculated  from  data  given  in  the  Kept.  Conn.  Bd.  Educ.  for  1903,  statis- 
tical tables,  p.p.  260,  261,  274,  and  283.) 


Total 

Census  4-16  yrs. 

Valuation 

No.  of  schools. 

valuation. 

Oct.,  1901. 

per  child. 

(Depts.) 

Bridgeport  

$61,560,175 

17,369 

$3,544 

219 

Danbury  

7,978,801 

4,641 

1,764 

67 

Bethel  

1,189,543 

715 

1,663 

18 

Brookfield  

431,200 

196 

2,200 

8 

Darien  

2,606,241 

443 

5,883 

ii 

Easton  

489,310 

189 

2,588 

9 

Fairfield  

3,360,460 

953 

3,526 

17 

Greenwich  

8,758,830 

2,662 

3,294 

50 

Huntington  

4,112,611 

1,332 

3,o86 

26 

Monroe  

357,500 

194 

i,843 

7 

New  Canaan  

1,939,190 

594 

3,265 

17 

New  Fairfield  

341,064 

128 

2,664 

6 

Newton  

1,565,763 

565 

2,771 

22 

Norwalk  

13,840,031 

4,632 

2,984 

71 

Redding  

575,274 

217 

2,651 

8 

Ridgefield  

1,879,961 

549 

3,424 

17 

Sherman  

324,802 

128 

2,539 

6 

Stamford  

10,531,321 

4,567 

2,306 

92 

Stratford  

i,437,03i 

904 

i,589 

17 

Trumbull  

642,293 

322 

1,995 

8 

Weston  

298,184 

155 

1,924 

5 

Westport  

2,319,055 

853 

2,719 

14 

Wilton  

870,014 

374 

2,324 

ii 

The  County $127,408,654 


42,682 


$2,985 


726 


44 


School  Funds  and  their  Apportionment 


TABLE  No.  8  (CONTINUED). 

Av.  valuation 
Towns.  per  school. 

(Dept.) 

Bridgeport $281,097 

Danbury 119,088 

Bethel 66,085 

Brookfield 53,9OO 

Darien 236,840 

Eastern 54,364 

Fairfield 197,674 

Greenwich 175,177 

Huntington 158,177 

Monroe 51,071 

New  Canaan 113,481 

New  Fairfield....     56,844 

Newton 71,171 

Nor  walk 194,930 

Redding 71,009 

Ridgefield 110,586 

Sherman 54,134 

Stamford 144,471 

Stratford 84,531 

Trumbull 80,287 

Weston 58,037 

Westport 165,646 

Wilton 78,183 

The  County $175,494  1.42      "  $23.18 

*  The  cost  per  pupil  in  average  daily  attendance  for  Bridgeport  is  given 
in  the  tables  as  $21.31,  which  is  evidently  a  mistake.  Calculation  makes 
the  cost  to  be  $28.06. 

An  inspection  of  the  tables  for  these  two  counties  shows  the  ex- 
istence of  very  great  inequalities  in  the  distribution  of  wealth 
among  the  towns  of  the  two  counties.  The  difference  in  taxable 
valuation  per  school  to  be  maintained  of  the  towns  of  Windham 
County  having  the  highest  and  the  lowest  average  valuation  per 
school  (teacher  employed)  being  as  185  (Putnam)  to  29  (Ash- 
ford),  and  in  Fairfield  County  being  as  281  (Bridgeport)  to  51 
(Monroe),  or  six  and  one-third  times  in  the  first  county  and  five 
and  one-half  times  in  the  other.2  On  the  basis  of  the  number  of 
mills  of  tax  Which  would  be  required  to  produce  $250  per  teacher 
employed  the  following  results  are  shown : 

2  In  ability  to  provide  the  advantages  of  a  good  education  the  inequalities 
are  much  greater  than  is  s'hown  by  these  tables  alone. 


Rate  of  tax 

Rate  of  local 

Cost  per  pupil 

in  mills 

tax  levied, 

in  Av.  Dy.  Att. 

for  $250. 

1901-02. 

for  Maint. 

.88  mills. 

3.26  mills. 

$28.06  * 

2.10         " 

4.40       " 

24-55 

3-79      " 

7.16       " 

18.70 

4.64      " 

4-55      " 

20.25 

1.05      " 

2.45 

33-79 

4.60      " 

4.43 

21.07 

1.26      " 

3-19      " 

29.09 

143       " 

2-43       " 

24.50 

1.68 

3-20         " 

19.91 

4.90 

4.25 

17.01 

2.20        " 

4.29     " 

26.22 

4-40      " 

3.89   " 

22.89 

3-51       " 

3.97     " 

24-39 

1.28      " 

2.93      " 

22.26 

348      " 

2.96      - 

20.18 

2.26      " 

2.89 

20.95 

4.61       " 

347       " 

19.21 

1-73      " 

6.78      " 

30.40 

2.96      " 

6.76      " 

21.84 

3.13 

5-19      " 

25.86 

4-33 

3.07       " 

19-59 

1.51       " 

1.85       " 

14.96 

3-19      " 

2.79      " 

15-87 

Inequalities  Existing  in  other  States  45 

Rate.                                         Windham  Co.      Fairfield  Co. 

Less  than  I  mill o  towns.  i  towns. 

From  i  to  2  mills 3  7 

From  2  to  3  mills 4  4 

From  3  to  4  mills 2  5 

From  4  to  5  mills 2       "  6       " 

From  5  to  6  mills o       "  o       " 

From  6  to  7  mills 2       "  o       " 

From  7  to  8  mills i        "  o       " 

From  8  to  9  mills I        "  o       " 

These  inequalities  are  further  emphasized  when  the  tables  pre- 
sented here  are  compared  with  the  statistical  data  in  the  Report 
from  which  these  tables  were  compiled.3  One  comparison  will 
illustrate  sufficiently.  In  Windham  County,  for  example,  the 
town  of  Ashford,  with  a  tax  of  4.03  mills,  in  addition  to  the 
State  aid  received,  was  able  to  pay  its  seven  teachers  an  average 
of  only  $19.04  per  month  and  maintain  its  schools  only  154/4 
days,  while  the  town  of  Putnam,  on  practically  the  same  rate  of  [ 
local  tax  (4.05  mills)  was  able  to  spend  a  half  more  per  year  on 
each  pupil ;  to  maintain  its  schools  180  days  each ;  pay  four  men 
teachers  an  average  monthly  salary  of  $85.61,  and  eighteen  wo- 
men teachers  an  average  monthly  salary  of  $40.92;  to  spend  on 
supplies  and  teaching  equipment  $36.00  for  each  teacher  em- 
ployed, exclusive  of  wages,  fuel,  repairs,  and  libraries,  to  Ash- 
ford's  $5.00;  and  to  maintain  a  four  years'  high  school  taught 
by  five  teachers,  while  Ashford  neither  maintained  a  high  school 
nor  is  listed  as  having  paid  tuition  for  any  of  its  children  in 
a  neighboring  town.3  Practically  the  same  rate  of  local  tax 
produced  entirely  different  results.  The  town  of  Putnam  could 
do  with  ease  what  it  would  be  impossible  for  the  town  of  Ash- 
ford-to  do. 

The  difference  in  the  required  town  tax  rate  for  schools  be- 
tween the  wealthier  and  the  poorer  towns,  with  what  this  tax 
will  provide,  may  be  shown  further  by  comparing  the  seven 
towns  in  Fairfield  County  (the  wealthiest  county,  Table  No.  8) 
which  had  the  highest  average  valuation  per  school  maintained 
with  the  seven  towns  of  the  same  county  which  had  the  lowest 
average  valuation  per  school,  during  the  school  year  1901-2. 

3  Additional  facts  taken  from  the  "  statistical  tables "  in  the  An.  Kept. 
Conn.  Bd.  Educ.  for  1903,  and  the  statistics  as  to  high  schools  on  pp.  146 
and  151. 


1 


46  School  Funds  and  their  Apportionment 

TABLE  No.  9. 

A   COMPARISON    OF  THE   SEVEN    WEALTHIEST   AND  THE   SEVEN   POOREST  TOWNS 
OF   FAIRFIELD   COUNTY,    CONNECTICUT. 

Seven  Wealthiest.  Seven  Poorest. 

Av.  valuation  Tax  Av.  valuation  Tax 

per  school.  in  mills.  per  school.  in  mills. 

$281,097  *  (4) 3.26  $71,171 3-97 

236,840  t 2.45  66,085  (3)  (3) 7.i6 

197,674 3-iQ  58,037 3-07 

194,930$  (4)    (3)   (3)   (3)   (K,  10).  2.93  56,844 3-89 

175,177  (4)  (K,  2) 2.43  54,364 4-43 

165,646 1.85  54,134 3-47 

158,177  (4) 3-20  53,900 4-55 

Average  rate 2.76  Average  rate 4.37 

*  Town  of  Bridgeport;  school  census  of  17,369  in  1901. 

t  Town  of  Darien;  school  census  of  only  443  in  1901. 

JTown  of  Norwalk;  school  census  of  4,632  in  1901. 

The  figures  in  parentheses  (3)  indicate  a  high  school  or  schools  main- 
tained, with  the  number  of  years  of  instruction  indicated  by  the  numeral 
enclosed. 

The  figures  in  brackets  following  a  K  indicate  the  number  of  kinder- 
garten teachers  employed,  (K,  2). 

The  inequalities  in  the  distribution  of  wealth  which  have  been 
shown  for  the  counties  and  certain  groups  of  towns  in  Massa- 
chusetts and  Connecticut,  with  the  accompanying  inequalities  in 
ability  to  maintain  good  schools  unaided  by  the  State,  are  to  be 
found,  in  greater  or  less  degree,  in  every  state  in  the  Union, 
and  could  be  shown  as  existing  generally  in  any  state  for  which 
proper  statistical  data  is  available.  When  one  passes  from  such 
well  settled  states  as  Massachusetts  and  Connecticut,  states  which 
have  an  average  density  of  population  4  to  the  square  mile  of 
348.9  and  187.5  respectively,  to  the  more  sparsely  settled  states  of 
the  Mississippi  Valley  and  the  West,  these  inequalities  become 
even  more  prominent.  To  illustrate  these  inqualities  still  further 
we  shall  make  a  series  of  similar  analyses  of  returns  for  the 
first  few  counties  of  five  other  states.  These  states  have  been 
selected  somewhat  at  random,  but  are  illustrative.  Any  other 
five  states  selected  would  show  about  the  same  results. 

We  shall  first  make  a  comparison  of  the  first  eight  counties,  in 
alphabetical  order,  of  the  State  of  Wisconsin,  a  state  of  an  aver- 
age density  of  population  of  28.0.*  To  these  we  attach,  for 

4  1 2th  U.  S.  Census,  1900,  Vol.  I,  Population,  Introduction. 


UN1VER     TY    3 


v 


Inequalities  Existing  in  other  States 


47 


further  comparison,  the  county  having  the  largest  city  in  the 
state,  and  the  state  averages. 

TABLE  No.  10. 

SHOWING  THE  INEQUALITIES   EXISTING  IN    NINE  COUNTIES   OF   WISCONSIN. 


Counties. 
Adams  

Total 
valuation.6 
1903. 

$4,8l6,66o 

Clmray,6 
4-20  years. 
1903. 

3  204 

Av.  Val. 
Per 
census 
child. 

1,468 

Afc.  7>5. 
employed.6 
1903-04 

131 

,4z/.  ^a/. 
^r  TV. 
employed. 

$^6  QQ7 

TOAT  in 
mills 
for  $250 
perTr. 

67=; 

Ashland  *  
Barren  

*r  ir?'~;Ov^J  '«"-"-' 

10,994,592 
9,870,102 

Oj^VT1 
7,206 

Q  378 

1,526 
I  CK2 

xo  A 
138 
230 

s'o'-'js'y/ 

79,671 

42  QI1 

w«/3 

3-14 
^83 

Bay  field 

12  334  8lO 

-7>O/  *•* 

4  c;72 

j.  j\j^^i 

2,698 

£*3\j 
IOO 

T1     ,b7A  O 

121  148 

O-*-'o 
2  O"? 

Brown  f 

•"••^jOOHj^  A  y 
20  4.6Q  Q7O 

T'O/  ^ 

16801 

T  74  c 

i8s 

1-^o>O'tt-' 
I  ^Q  2O7 

•^•>Jo 
T  <6 

Buffalo  

^y^T^b^y/  w 
10873  410 

i\j,«jyx 

6  250 

i,/'4O 
I  777 

ioo 
132 

ijy^y/ 
82  367 

l.^U 

3  04 

Burnett  

v^jv^/  Oj^r  x_7 

2,^39,145 

J       O;7 

-j  C?Q 

>/  o/ 

663 

**j** 

1  08 

o^jO   / 

21  6^0 

O'^H- 
II  ^7 

Calumet  
Milwaukee  $.  .  .  . 

JOO-/J  *"*J 

15,629,094 
391,432,556 

O?OO^ 

6,548 
117,881 

wwO 

2,387 

3,32i 

90 
1,136 

^*  A>^^oy 

173,656 

344,579 

4  •'••O/ 

1-44 

72 

The  State $1,753,172,000      758,626      2,311      13,669      $128,259        1.95 

*  Includes  the  city  of  Ashland, 
t  Includes  the  city  of  Green  Bay. 
$  Includes  the  city  of  Milwaukee. 

Ashland  and  Bayfield  Counties  are  located  on  the  shore  of 
Lake  Superior,  with  a  good  harbor  in  common,  and  possess  mines 
and  many  lines  of  railway;  Brown  County  is  a  small  county  at 
the  lower  end  of  Green  Bay,  and  includes  the  city  of  Green 
Bay  with  its  shipping  and  six  lines  of  railway  diverging  from  it 
like  the  spokes  of  a  wheel;  Calumet  County  is  another  small 
county,  just  south  of  Brown,  borders  on  Lake  Winnebago,  is 
connected  with  Green  Bay  by  a  river  and  two  lines  of  railway, 
and  has  two  other  east-and-west  lines  of  railway  crossing  the 
County.  Barren  and  Burnett  Counties  are  larger  than  Calumet 
or  Brown,  but  these  are  to  the  northwest  and  not  so  advantage- 

5  Equalized  Assessment  of  the  State  Tax  Commission  for  the  year  1903, 
from  figures  supplied  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Commission.     If  the  county 
assessor's  valuations  for  the  same  year  are  used  the  range  of  variations  is 
increased. 

6  Bien.  Kept.  Supt.  Pub.  Instr.  Wis.  for  1903-04,  statistical  tables,  pp.  2, 
26,  99,   118.     I  have  used  the  total  valuation  for  1903,  on  which  school 
money  for  1903-04  must  be  raised ;  the  school  census  figures  gathered  dur- 
ing the  summer  of  1903,  on  which  the  annual  apportionment  of  the  follow- 
ing December  is  made;  and  the  number  of  teachers  employed  to  teach  the 
schools  during  the  school  year  1903-04. 


48 


School  Funds  and  their  Apportionment 


ously  located.  Adams  County  is  in  the  centra1!  part  of  the  state, 
but  is  without  railroads  and  hence  somewhat  isolated.  The  in- 
equalities in  taxing  power  for  schools  between  these  counties  is 
very  marked.  Burnett  County,  for  example,  would  be  required 
to  levy  5.9  times  as  large  a  tax  as  the  average  of  the  State,  8.0 
times  as  large  as  Calumet  County,  and  16.1  times  as  large  a  tax 
as  Milwaukee  County  to  raise  the  same  amount  of  money,  de- 
linquent tax-payers  being  neglected. 

Inequalities  of  the  same  nature  may  be  shown  by  a  comparison 
of  the  first  eight  counties,  as  arranged  in  alphabetical  order,  of 
the  State  of  Missouri,7  with  the  city  of  St.  Louis  and  the  aver- 
age for  the  state  as  a  whole. 

TABLE  No.  ii. 

ILLUSTRATING  INEQUALITIES   EXISTING   IN    THE    STATE  OF    MISSOURI. 

(Calculated  for  the  school  year  1903-04  from  statistical  data  given  in  the 
Kept.  State  Supt.  of  Pub.  Instr.  of  Mo.,  1904.) 


Counties. 

Adair 

Total 
valuation. 

$5  5OOOOO 

Census, 
4-20  years. 

6800 

Av.  Val. 
Per 
census 
child. 

$809 

No.  Trs. 
employed. 

151 

Av.  Val. 
Per  Tr. 
employed. 

$36  423 

Tax  in 
mills 
for  $250 
per  Tr. 

686 

Andrew  

7,572,928 

5,O20 

1,508 

1  08 

70,119 

356 

Atohison  *  .  . 

8  380  IAS 

4  77  c 

I  757 

126 

66582 

3.75 

Audrain  

8,752  360 

6  ^40 

i  ^6 

146 

en  263 

4  22 

Barry 

4  ^I1?  'UO 

8,368 

530 

137 

32.Q58 

7.58 

Barton 

%  008  ^13 

5817 

i  cni 

141 

42  ^40 

587 

Bates  

10,169,171 

8,907 

1,142 

173 

58,781 

425 

Bienton 

4  201  47O 

c  4^7 

780 

IOQ 

30  371 

6  34 

St.  Louis,  City.  . 

415,824,520 

178,260 

2,331 

1,859 

223,682 

I.  II 

The  State $1,284,294,571      995,536      $1,290      17,036      $75.387        3.32 

*  Due  to  an  evident  typographical  error  in  the  Report  'for  1904,  the  figures 
for  this  county  were  taken  from  the  Report  for  1903. 

So  far  as  revealed  by  an  inspection  of  the  map,  there  is  no 
great  difference  in  these  counties,  but  the  inequalities  in  per- 
capita  valuation  are  quite  marked.  All  are  below  the  State 
average  valuation  per  school  maintained.  None  contain  large 
cities.  All  have  two  or  more  lines  of  railway  crossing  the  county, 
except  Barry,  which  is  crossed  by  but  one,  and  Benton,  which 
has  only  a  branch  line  entering  to  the  county  seat.  Andrew, 

7  Average  density  of  population,  24.7.  I2th  U.  S.  Census,  1900,  Vol.  I, 
Population,  Introduction. 


Inequalities  Existing  in  other  States 


49 


Atchison,  Barton,  and  Bates  are  on  the  western  edge  of  the 
state,  Adair  on  the  northern,  and  Barry  on  the  southern.  Audrain 
and  Benton  are  in  the  western  half  o-f  the  state.  These  counties 
are  all  distinctively  "  white  counties,"  there  having  been  but 
seventeen  negro  teachers  employed  in  1904  in  the  eight  counties. 
The  inequalities  in  taxing  power  are  well  shown  by  the  last 
column  of  figures. 

These  inequalities  in  taxing  power  for  schools  may  be  shown 
even  better  by  a  similar  comparison  of  the  first  eight  counties, 
in  alphabetical  order,  of  the  State  of  Kansas,  a  state  with  an 
average  density  of  population  (1900)  of  18.0,  and  a  state  which, 
except  for  the  income  8  from  the  permanent  State  and  County 
School  Funds,  distributed  equally  to  all  on  census,  supports  its 
schools  wholly  by  district  taxation. 

TABLE  No.  12. 

ILLUSTRATING   INEQUALITIES   EXISTING   IN   THE   STATE   OF   KANSAS. 

(Calculated  for  the  school  year  1903-04  from  data  given  in  the  statistical 
tables  of  the  itfh  Bien.  Kept.  Supt.  Pub.  Instr.,  Kansas,  1904.) 


Counties. 


Total 
valuation. 


Census, 
r-21  Yrs. 

Av.  Val. 
Per  census 
child* 

No. 
Trs.  em- 
ployed. 

Av.  Val.          Tax  in 
Per  Tr.  em-     mills  for 
ployed*    $250  per  Tr. 

9,IO> 

$753 

107 

$64,281 

3-90 

4,559 

762 

105 

33,102 

7-54 

7,838 

642 

86 

58,536 

4.24 

2,288 

834 

84 

22,652 

10,88 

4,819 

1,094 

117 

45,054 

5-55 

9,764 

589 

126 

45,646 

5-43 

6,664 

823 

IO2 

53,736 

4.63 

7,763 

838 

193 

33,719 

7-35 

Allen $6,878,147 

Anderson 3,475,742 

Atchison 5,034,134 

Barber 1,902,748 

Barton 5,271,358 

Bourbon 5,751,368 

Brown 5,481,063 

Butler 6,507,748 

*  The  State  average  per  census  child  was  $714.  The  State  average  per 
teacher  employed  cannot  be  determined,  due  to  the  absence  of  reports  from 
a  number  of  the  first  and  'Second  class  cities,  tout  it  is  probably  not  very  far, 
estimating  roughly,  from  $32,500.  This  would  place  these  counties  as  above 
the  average  in  wealth. 

A  comparison  of  the  columns  showing  the  average  valuation 
per  census  child  and  the  average  valuation  per  school  maintained, 
which  means  teachers  employed,  shows  what  a  poor  basis  average 
valuation  per  census  child  is  for  estimating  the  needs  and  abili- 
ties of  a  community,  with  reference  to  the  proper  maintenance  of 

8  The  State  apportionment  was  only  82c.  per  capita  on  census  for  1904. 
1 4th  Bien.  Kept.  Supt.  Pu'j.  Instr.  for  Kan.,  1903-04,  p.  86. 


School  Funds  and  their  Apportionment 


its  schools.  Allen  and  Anderson  Counties  have  practically  the 
same  average  valuation  per  census  child,  and  each  requires  about 
the  same  number  of  teachers.  The  total  valuation  of  Allen 
County  is  twice  that  of  Anderson,  but  the  number  of  census  chil- 
dren is  also  twice  as  large.  The  result  is  that  Allen  County, 
due  to  the  fact  that  it  can  teach  its  children  with  much  greater 
economy  than  Anderson  County,  because  of  its  greater  density 
of  population,  has  an  average  of  about  twice  as  much  taxable 
wealth  to  maintain  each  of  its  schools  as  has  Allen  County,  and 
a  correspondingly  lower  local  tax  rate. 

These  inequalities  may  be  further  shown  by  comparing  the 
first  eight  counties,  in  alphabetical  order,  of  the  State  of  Cali- 
fornia, with  one  another  and  with  the  combined  City  and  County 
of  San  Francisco,  and  these  in  turn  with  the  average  for  the 
State  as  a  whole.  The  density  of  population  of  California  (1900) 
was  9.5  persons  to  the  square  mile. 

TABLE  No.  13. 

ILLUSTRATING   INEQUALITIES    EXISTING 

(Calculated  for  the  school  year  1903-04 
tables  of  the  2ist  Bien.  Kept.  Supt 


Counties. 


Total 
valuation. 


Census, 
5-17  years. 


Alameda $128,681,766        34,939 


Alpine 

Amador 

Butte 

Calaveras 

Colusa 

Contra  Costa. . . . 

Del  Norte 

San  Francisco. . . 


422,063 

4,918,908 

16,057,766 

6,177,275 

12,188,096 

21,753,956 

2,882,445 

564,070,301 


78 

2,389 
4,677 
2,631 
1,858 

4,897 
678 

97,353 


IN    THE    STATE   OF 

from  data  given 

CALIFORNIA. 

in  the  statistical 

.  Pub.  Instr.,  Cal. 

,  1903-04.' 

> 

Av.  Val. 

No. 

Av.  Val. 

Tax  in 

per 

Trs.  em- 

per Tr. 

mills 

census 

ployed. 

employed. 

for  <250 

child. 

per  Tr. 

$3,362 

575 

$223,620 

1.  12 

5,411 

3 

140,688 

1.77 

2,059 

63 

78,236 

3-i8 

3,433 

108 

148,683 

1.68 

2,348 

73 

84,620 

2.96 

6,559 

53 

229,964 

1.08 

4,442 

98 

221,979 

1-13 

4,25i 

18 

160,136 

1.56 

5,794 

996 

566,336 

•44 

The  State $1,598,603,226      407,398      $3,923     7,797      $205,028        1.22 

San  Francisco  County  has  the  same  boundaries  as  the  City  of 
San  Francisco.  Alameda  County,  though  large  and  partly  moun- 
tainous, contains  the  three  large  and  wealthy  cities  of  Berkeley, 
Oakland,  and  Alameda,  and  also  has  a  rich  fruit-growing  section. 
Alpine  is  a  mountain  county  without  railroads,  and  Amador  and 
Calaveras  are  in  large  part  similarly  situated.  Butte  and  Colusa 
are  farming  and  fruit-growing  counties  in  the  upper  Sacramento 


Inequalities  Existing  in  other  States  51 

Valley.  Contra  Costa  is  a  grain  and  fruit-raising  county,  with  a 
long  deep-water  frontage  on  upper  San  Francisco  Bay.  Del 
Norte  is  a  small  county  in  the  northwest  corner  of  the  state,  and 
has  no  railroads. 

An  inspection  of  the  columns  showing  average  valuation  per 
census  child  and  average  taxable  valuation  per  teacher  shows,  like 
the  table  for  the  Kansas  Counties,  the  unreliability  of  any  esti- 
mates based  on  average  valuation  per  census  child.  San  Fran- 
cisco, for  example,  has  an  average  valuation  per  census  child  not 
far  different  from  that  of  Alpine  County,  though  the  valuation 
per  teacher  employed  is  3.3  times  as  great.  The  inequalities  in 
taxable  valuation  are  quite  marked  in  these  counties,  but  an  in- 
spection of  the  tables  given  in  the  Report 9  from  which  these 
counties  were  selected  -and  calculated  shows  that  even  greater 
inequalities  could  be  shown  by  selecting  other  counties.  The  tax- 
able valuation  of  San  Francisco  per  teacher  is  very  high,  being 
2.8  times  the  average  for  the  state  as  a  whole  and  7.2  times  that 
of  Amador  County.  Calculating  from  the  data  9  given  for  1904, 
we  find  that  for  that  year  San  Francisco  had  36%  of  the  taxable 
property  of  the  state,  24%  of  the  school  census  of  the  state,  and 
employed  but  13%  of  the  teachers  of  the  state. 

One  further  illustration  of  existing  inequalities  may  be  given. 
Taking  the  first  ten  counties  of  Indiana,  in  alphabetical  order,  the 
two  counties  containing  the  two  largest  cities,  and  the  state  as  a 
whole,  and  calculating  as  in  the  preceding  tables  we  get  the  next 
comparative  table.  The  density  of  population  in  Indiana  (1900) 
was  70.1  persons  to  the  square  mile. 

9  2ist  Bien.  Kept.  Supt.  Pub.  Instr.  for  Cal,  1903-04,  pp.  152,  160,  177,  181. 


52  School  Funds  and  their  Apportionment 

TABLE  No.  14. 

ILLUSTRATING    INEQUALITIES    EXISTING   IN    THE    STATE   OF    INDIANA. 

(Calculated  for  the  school  year  1903-04  from  data  given  in  the  statistical 
tables  of  the  Bien,  Kept.  Supt.  Pub.  Instr.,  Ind.,  for  1904. 


Counties. 

Total 
valuation.10 

Census,11. 
6-21  years. 

Av.  Val.     . 
Per 
census        ( 
child. 

No.  Trs. 
employed 
'schools). 

Av.  Val. 
Per 
school    PI 
maint. 

Tax  in 
mills  to 
roduce  $250 
per  school. 

Adams  
Allen  * 

$11,375,490 
43  34O  600 

7,707 
24  789 

$1,606 

I  748 

139 
360 

$81,838 
120  391 

3.06 
2.08 

Bartholomew  . 

T'OjOT1  ,v-/y 
16,831,525 

^T"?/  ^y 

6,799 

J/  ^ 

2,475 

o^^ 

170 

•L*"v-'jO;7  x 

2-55 

Benton  

16,246,885 

3,720 

4,367 

127 

127,927 

1.76 

Blackford  
Boone           .  .  . 

8,507,245 
18,063,020 

5,38i 

7  3OO 

i,58i 
2  444 

103 

180 

82,594 
100,350 

3.01 
2.50 

Brown  
Carroll  

1,859,540 
12,072,256 

/  jO:/^ 

3,163 

5,780 

JT^HT 

588 
2,089 

77 
161 

24,150 
74,921 

10.41* 
3-33 

Cass  
Clark  

18,556,205 
IO,224,8l2 

3)/  *•**• 

10,191 
9,700 

i    WV 

1,722 

1,054 

202 
1  80 

91,862 
56,805 

2.72 
4.40 

Marion  f 

;?)/  **** 

=50876 

3058 

95° 

163,792 

1.53 

Vanderburg  $. 

32,762,530 

O     >w/ 

23,306 

o*^ow 

1,406 

339 

96,663 

2.59 

The  State $1,359,300,199      768,842      $1,769      16,256      $83,618        2.99 

*  Contains  the  third  largest  city  in  the  State,  Ft.  Wayne. 

f  Contains  the  largest  city  in  the  State,  Indianapolis. 

$  Contains  the  second  largest  city  in  the  State,  Evansville. 

The  inequalities  in  county  averages  are  less  in -these  counties 
than  in  most  of  the  preceding  states.  This  is  partly  due  to  the 
fact  that  all  of  the  counties,  except  Brown,  Bartholomew,  and 
Vanderburg  are  located  in  the  northern  half  of  the  state  and  north 
of  the  glacial  drift  line,  and  hence  represent  good  conditions. 
Bartholomew  is  also  well  situated  and  is  a  comparatively  rich 
county.  Brown  County,  on  the  other  hand,  has  the  lowest  prop- 
erty valuation  of  any  of  the  ninety-two  counties  of  the  state. 
Vanderburg's  large  valuation  is  due  chiefly  to  its  large  city. 

Table  No.  20,  Chapter  VI,  showing  the  difference  between  a 
general  state  school  tax  and  a  county  tax  in  rate  required  to  pro- 
duce the  same  result,  gives  a  similar  illustration  for  the  different 
counties  of  the  State  of  Washington.  The  basis  of  calculation  in 
Table  No.  20  is  the  rate  of  tax  in  mills  required  to  produce  a  sum 
equal  to  $10.00  per  child  in  average  daily  attendance  at  school 
during  the  preceding  year.  This  table  shows  that,  levied  on  the 

10  An.  Kept.  State  Auditor,  Ind.,  1904. 

11  Bien.  Kept,.  Supt.  Pub.  Instr.,  Ind.,  1904. 


Inequalities  Existing  in  other  States  53 

state  as  a  whole,  7.0  mills  would  be  required  on  the  valuation 
for  1904.  If  the  same  were  levied  in  the  counties  individually  as 
a  county  tax  the  extremes  required  would  be  3.4  mills  and  21.2 
mills.  In  twelve  counties  the  rate  required  would  be  less  than 
the  state  average,  while  in  twenty-four  counties  it  would  be  higher 
than  the  state  average,  being  above  10  mills  in  nine  counties  and 
above  15  mills  in  three  counties. 

Even  a  hasty  inspection  of  the  columns  of  the  tables  so  far 
presented,  showing  what  rate  of  local  tax  would  be  necessary 
to  produce  $250,  assuming  that  there  would  be  no  delinquent 
tax-payers  and  neglecting  any  state  aid,  will  serve  to  show  the 
great  inequality  of  burden  for  support  if  any  large  percentage 
of  the  expense  is  to  be  paid  by  local  taxation,  and  the  great 
difficulty  of  providing  by  local  taxation  for  even  a  legal  mini- 
mum of  good  education  in  some  of  the  towns  and  counties  used 
as  illustrations.  Much  less  could  many  of  these  communities 
provide  any  of  the  higher  advantages  of  education.  To  show  this 
comparatively  we  tabulate  for  each  group  the  extremes  of  taxa- 
tion required  to  produce,  by  local  taxation,  a  minimum  of  $250 
per  teacher  per  year  for  the  maintenance  of  schools  in  the  town 
or  county. 

TABLE  No.  15. 

HIGHEST  AND  LOWEST   RATE  OF  TAX   IN    MILLS    NECESSARY  TO   PRODUCE  $250   BY 
LOCAL   TAXATION,    WITH    STATE   AVERAGES. 

(Compiled  from  the  preceding  tables.) 

Table  Item.  Rate  of  taxation  in  mills. 

number.  Highest.  Lowest.    Average. 

2       37  Massachusetts  towns 11.62  .36  .... 

6  8  Connecticut  counties 2.97  1.42  

State  of  Connecticut ....  1.75 

7  15  towns  of  Windham  Co 8.41  1.35  2.68 

8  23  towns  of  Fairfield  Co 4.90  .88  1.42 

10  9  Wisconsin  counties n.57  .72  .... 

State  of  Wisconsin 1.95 

11  8  Missouri  counties 7.58  3.56  .... 

State  of  Missouri 3.32 

12  8  Kansas  counties 10.88  3.90  

13  9  California  counties 3.18  .44  

State  of  California ....  1.22 

14  10  Indiana  counties 10.41  1.76  

State  of  Indiana ....  2.99 


54  School  Funds  and  their  Apportionment 

While  the  towns  or  counties  having  the  lowest  rate  of  taxation 
would  have  no  difficulty  in  maintaining  good  schools  taught  by 
good  teachers  for  nine  or  ten  months  in  the  year,  with  a  high 
school  in  addition,  the  towns  or  counties  having  the  highest  rate 
of  taxation  could  maintain,  with  difficulty,  only  poor  schools, 
taught  by  cheap  teachers,  for  the  legal  minimum  term,  and  could 
offer  no  advantages  beyond  the  "  common  branches  "  required 
by  law  of  all  schools. 

Of  course  the  effort  made  by  a  community  in  maintaining  its 
schools  is  not  shown  by  its  school  tax  alone,  but  by  the  total  of 
all  its  taxes  and  the  proportion  of  the  total  devoted  to  education, 
and  this  fact  ought  to  be  considered  in  any  serious  attempt  to 
equalize  the  burdens  of  support.  A  community,  though,  has  only 
about  so  much  money  to  spend  and  can  raise  only  so  much  on  a 
certain  number  of  mills  of  tax,  so  that  the  tax  rate  required  to 
raise  a  certain  sum  is  a  fair  indication  of  the  relative  efforts  which 
communities  must  put  forth  to  maintain  their  schools. 

Any  attempt  at  the  equalization  of  the  opportunities  for  edu- 
cation, much  less  any  attempt  at  equalizing  burdens,  is  clearly  im- 
possible under  a  system  of  exclusively  local  taxation.  Some  form 
of  general  aid  is  a  necessity  if  any  thing  like  common  advantages 
are  to  be  provided  for  all.  In  the  two  following  chapters  we  shall 
examine  the  different  forms  of  general  aid  which  the  different 
states  have  created  with  a  view  to  seeing  to  what  extent  each  can 
be  depended  on  for  use,  in  equalizing  either  the  advantages  or  the 
burdens  of  public  education. 


CHAPTER  V 
PERMANENT  ENDOWMENT  FUNDS  FOR  EDUCATION 

THOSE  interested  in  general  education  seem  early  to  have  real- 
ized that  local  taxation  alone  would  not  be  sufficient  to  properly 
maintain  schools,  and  a  series  of  endowment  grants  for  education 
was  begun.  In  a  few  states  the  formation  of  endowment  funds 
was  begun  before  the  schools  were  established  or  local  taxation 
authorized.1 

Endowments  for  education  are  almost  tas  old  as  the  settlements 
in  America.  In  the  early  New  England  colonies,  where  land  was 
plentiful  and  money  scarce,  the  earliest  land  endowments  for  edu- 
cation were  made.  These  were  granted  to  maintain  a  school  or 
schools  in  various  towns.  Dorchester,2  with  the  income  from 
Thompson's  Island,  set  apart  in  1639;  Boston,3  with  the  income 

1  In  the  constitutions  of  North  Carolina  (1776)   and  Georgia   (1777)   in 
the  South,  of  Pennsylvania  (1776)  and  Vermont  (1777)  in  the  North,  and 
of  Ohio  (1802)  and  Indiana  (1816)   in  the  West,  provision  was  made  for 
a  system  of  schools  to  foe  established  by  the  legislature.     The  constitution 
of  Indiana  required  that  there  should  be  established,  "  as  soon  as  circum- 
stances would  permit,  a  general  system  of  education,  ascending  in  a  regular 
graduation  from  the  township  schools  to  a  state  university,  wherein  tuition 
shall  be  free  and  equally  open  to  all."     (Art.  IX,  Sec.  2,  of  the  Constitu- 
tion of  1816). 

In  North  Carolina,  however,  a  school  fund  was  not  begun  until  1825, 
and  no  system  of  schools  was  instituted  until  1840.  In  Georgia  a  state  sys- 
tem was  not  instituted  until  1858.  In  Pennsylvania,  1834  really  marks  the 
beginning  of  a  free  school  system  for  the  state.  Vermont  made  a  general 
tax  obligatory  on  the  towns  in  1810,  and  began  a  school  fund  in  1825.  In 
both  Ohio  and  Indiana  the  township  fund  endowment  was  begun  by  the 
Ordinance  of  1789  and  confirmed  by  the  terms  of  admission  to  the  Union, 
but  in  Ohio  district  taxation  was  first  made  possible  in  1821,  and  a  state 
school  tax  was  begun  in  1838,  while  the  first  school  law  in  Indiana  was 
enacted  in  1824  authorizing  local  taxation,  but  a  state  school  tax  was  not 
authorized  until  1849. 

2  Town  Council  order  of  May  2Oth,  1639. 

8  Clews,  E.  W.,  Educational  Legislation  and  Administration  of  i\ie  Colo- 
nial Governments,  p.  61 

(55) 


56  School  Funds  and  their  Apportionment 

from  Deere  Island,  set  aside  in  1641,  and  the  one  thousand  acres 
of  land  granted  it  for  the  support  of  schools  by  the  General  Court 
in  1660;  the  one  thousand  acres  granted  Charleston4  in  1659 
for  the  same  purpose ;  Plymouth,  with  the  income  from  the  Cape 
Cod  fishing  industry,  set  apart  for  free  schools  in  i67o;5  and 
the  Island  of  Matinicunk  granted  to  Burlington  6  by  the  Assembly 
of  West  Jersey  in  1682,  to  be  used  "  from  henceforth  and  forever 
hereafter  for  educational  purposes,"  are  well  known  examples  of 
these  early  endowments.  In  New  Hampshire,  also,  most  of  the 
incorporated  towns  made  grants  of  land  7  for  the  support  of 
schools  between  1680  and  1783.  Some  of  these  early  endow- 
ments were  sufficient  to  entirely  support  the  schools,  while  others 
had  to  be  supplemented  by  subscription,  tuition,  or  local  taxation. 
As  the  population  increased,  the  idea  of  trying  to  support  schools 
by  endowments  was  gradually  superseded  by  the  idea  of  using 
the  income  from  endowments  as  far  as  it  would  go  and  then  sup- 
plementing it  by  local  taxation,  and,  later  still,  by  state  taxation. 
In  1733,  Connecticut 8  set  apart  seven  towns  in  Litchfield 
County,  then  being  laid  out  for  settlement,  for  the  support  of 
schools.  A  series  of  minor  grants  were  made  to  different 
schools  during  the  colonial  period,9  and  in  1795,  on  the  sale  of 
the  so-called  "  Western  Reserve  "  for  one  million  dollars,  Con- 
necticut added  this  amount  to  the  permanent  school  fund  of  the 
State.10  In  1786,  New  York  ll  provided  for  the  laying  out  of 
certain  lands  to  aid  in  supporting  churches  and  schools,  and  in 
1801  appropriated  the  income  from  the  sales  of  a  half  million 
acres  of  land  to  a  permanent  fund  for  the  support  of  common 
schools.  A  number  of  other  states  early  began  to  build  up  a 
permanent  fund  for  the  support  of  education;12  Tennessee  in 

4  Ibid.,  p.  62. 

5  Plymouth  Historical  Society  Collections,  xiv,  p.  80. 

6  Murray,  D.,  History  of  Education  in  New  Jersey,  p.  19. 

7  Bush,  Geo.  G.,  History  of  Education  in  New  Hampshire,  p.  12. 

8  Steiner,  B.  C,  History  of  Education  in  Connecticut,  p.  30. 

9  Ibid.,  p.  31. 

10  Ibid.,  p.  39;  Act  of  May,  1795. 

11  Sherwood,  S.,  The  University  of  the  State  of  New  York,  pp.  519-520. 

12  For  a  sketch  of  these  early  funds  in  the  various  states  see  the  article 
by  A.  D.  Mayo,  entitled  "  Original  Establishment  of  State  School  Funds," 
in  Kept.  U.  S.  Com.  Educ.,  1894-95,  II,  pp.  1507-08. 


Permanent  Endowment  Funds  57 

1806;  Virginia  in  1810;  South  Carolina  in  1811;  New  Jersey  in 
1820;  Maine,  New  Hampshire,  Louisiana,  and  Kentucky  in  1821 ; 
Vermont  and  North  Carolina  in  1825 ;  and  Massachusetts  13  in 
1834,  serving  as  examples.  In  Virginia  and  North  Carolina  the 
fund  was  set  aside  chiefly  for  the  education  of  the  poor. 

In  the  development  of  the  State  endowments  the  general  gov- 
ernment has  rendered  very  valuable  assistance.  In  providing  for 
the  government  of  the  Virginia  Cession  of  all  her  lands  north 
of  the  Ohio  River,  Congress  adopted  an  ordinance  in  1785,  which 
provided  for  the  reservation  and  sale  of  "  lot  numbered  16,  of 
every  township,  for  the  maintenance  of  public  schools  through- 
out the  township,"  14  and  this  provision  was  confirmed  in  the 
famous  Ordinance  of  1787.  This  reservation  and  grant  marks 
the  commencement  of  a  policy  since  uniformly  observed.  In 
1803  Congress  further  provided  1S  that  all  states  in  the  Missis- 
sippi Valley  should  share  in  the  educational  privileges  of  the 
Ordinance  of  1787.  In  1848  the  grant  of  land  for  schools  was 
raised  to  two  sections,  and  Utah,  in  1896,  received  four  sections.18 
In  the  states  of  the  North-West  Territory  the  cession  was  made 
directly  for  the  benefit  of  the  schools  of  the  township  in  which 
the  section  was  located,  though  later  in  other  states  the  fund  aris- 
ing from  these  sections  was  vested  in  the  state  and  for  the  benefit 
of  the  schools  of  the  state  as  a  whole.  This  early  idea  of  equal 
division  among  all  and  aid  to  particular  localities  instead  of  to 
the  state  as  a  whole  has  since  given  rise  to  marked  inequalities, 
the  states  of  Indiana  and  Missouri,  as  will  be  shown  later,  being 
good  illustrations. 

In  1836  Congress  provided  17  for  the  distribution  of  the  sur- 
plus revenue  in  the  national  treasury,  after  deducting  $5,000,000, 
to  be  distributed  among  the  several  states  in  proportion  to  the 

13  For  a  short  sketch  of  the  history  of  the  fund  see  64th  An.  Rept.  Mass. 
Bd.  Educ.,  1899-1900,  p.  16. 

14  Journals  of  Congress,  IV,  521. 

16  Blackmar,  F.  W.,  History  of  Federal  and  State  Aid  to  Higher  Educa- 
tion in  the  United  States,  p.  45. 

16  Maine,    Texas,    and    West   Virginia    did    not   share   in   these   grants. 
Maine   sold   twenty  townships    in    1821   to   establish   a   fund,   while  Texas 
devoted  certain  lands  to  the  support  of  schools,  and  has  to-day  the  largest 
permanent  school  fund  of  any  state  in  -the  Union. 

17  United  States  Statutes  at  Large,  V,  55. 


58  School  Funds  and  their  Apportionment 

number  of  Senators  and  Representatives  in  Congress.  Eight 
states18  devoted  their  quotas  entirely  to  education;  two  states19 
devoted  one-half;  two  states20  devoted  one-third;  and  three 
states  21  devoted  a  varying  portion  of  the  fund  to  this  purpose. 
At  5%  interest  the  portion  devoted  to  education  would  have 
produced  nearly  five  billion  dollars  of  income  for  schools  by 
this  time.22 

In  1850  23  Congress  granted  to  the  several  states  the  proceeds 
of  certain  swamp  lands.  A  few  of  the  states  have  devoted  the 
proceeds  of  their  lands  to  the  building  up  of  the  permanent  state 
fund.  Certain  saline  lands,  granted  by  Congress,  have  also  netted 
small  sums  for  education  to  a  few  of  the  states,2*  and  the  pro- 
ceeds of  the  five  hundred  thousand  acres  of  public  land  granted 
to  new  states  has  been  set  apart  for  the  benefit  of  education  by 
a  number  of  the  western  states.25  A  few  special  grants  have 
also  been  made  to  individual  states,26  and  a  number  of  the  states 
have  added  the  three  or  five  per  cent,  received  from  the  Gov- 
ernment from  the  sale  of  public  lands  within  the  state,27  to  the 
principal  of  the  school  fund. 

Many  of  the  states  have  added  and  continue  to  add,  in  a  great 
variety  of  ways,  to  the  endowments  received  from  the  general 
government  or  to  the  permanent  funds  established  by  themselves. 
A  few  examples  may  be  mentioned. 

In  1834  Indiana  raisd  $80,000  by  a  twelve  and  a  half  per  cent, 
tax  on  each  share  of  bank  stock,  and  provided  for  the  establish- 

18  Alabama,    Delaware,    Kentucky,    Missouri,    New    York,    Ohio,    Rhode 
Island,  and  Vermont. 

19  Connecticut  and  Indiana. 

20  Georgia  and  South  Carolina. 

21  Illinois,  Maryland,  and  North  Carolina   (three-fourteenths). 

22  For   a    detailed  history   of   this   distribution   see   The  History   of  the 
Surplus  Revenue  of  1837,  by  Edw.  G.  Bourne  (New  York,  1885). 

23  Act  of  Sept.  28,  1850. 

24  Ohio  and  Indiana  are  examples. 

2B  California,  Colorado,  Iowa,  Kansas,  Nevada,  Oregon,  Washington 
have  so  devoted  their  funds. 

26  The  Huntington  fund  in  Vermont  is  the  chief  grant  of  this  kind. 

27  The  requirement  that  this  be  so  devoted  is  a  common  School   Fund 
enumeration  item  in  the  constitutions  of  the  western  states. 


Permanent  Endowment  Funds  59 

uient  of  a  State  bank,  with  a  percentage  of  the  loan  to  be  paid 
back  in  time  to  the  principal  of  the  common  school  fund.  This 
has  netted  the  state  over  five  and  one-half  million  dollars.28 
Rhode  Island  adds  all  fees  derived  from  auctioneers'  licences 
and  all  forfeited  apportionments.29  Maine  adds  one-half  of  the 
fines  imposed  for  the  unlawful  employment  of  children.30 
Georgia  has  devoted  the  income  from  a  variety  of  items,  among 
which  are  one-half  the  net  income  from  the  rental  of  the  Western 
and  Atlantic  Railway,  and  the  proceeds  of  the  State's  stock  in  the 
Georgia  Railway,  the  Bank  of  Augusta,  and  the  Bank  of 
Georgia.31  Nevada  adds  the  proceeds  of  all  fines  for  violations 
of  the  penal  laws,  and  two  per  cent,  of  the  gross  proceeds  of  all 
toll-roads  and  bridges.32  Massachusetts  has  appropriated  $100,000 
annually  33  for  some  years  out  of  the  public  treasury  to  the  prin- 
cipal of  the  permanent  fund,  the  appropriation  to  stop  when  the 
fund  reaches  $5,000,000.  Gifts  and  devises,  unclaimed  estates, 
fines,  liquor  licenses,  unclaimed  fees,  and  forfeited  apportion- 
ments, are  some  of  the  means  adopted  by  the  different  states 
to  increase  their  permanent  funds  for  the  support  of  education. 

As  it  is  to-day,  forty  states  have  permanent  state  and  local 
funds  and  unsold  lands  varying  in  amount 34  from  that  of  North 
Carolina,  with  $194,159,  to  that  of  Texas,  with  a  fund  of  $30,- 
489,932,  productive  lands  estimated  as  worth  $15,877,556,  and  un- 
productive lands  estimated  as  worth  $5,400,000,  or  a  total  of 
$51,767,488. 

Beside  the  general  state  endowments  and  the  Congressional 
township  endowments  for  education,  individual  town  or  city  en- 
dowment funds  are  common  in  New  England,  and  some  of  the 
central  and  western  states  have  also  established  permanent  county 

28  Blackmar,    F.   W.,  History  of  State  and  Federal  Aid   to  Education, 
pp.  230-31. 

29  General  Laws  of  Rhode  Island,  Ch.  30,  Sees.  2,  3. 
80  Maine  Revised  Statutes,  1903,  Ch.  40,  Sec.  54. 

31  Georgia  Acts  of  1887,  p.  79. 

32  Compiled  School  Laws  of  Nevada,  1901,  Art.  XIX,  Sec.  I. 

38  Massachusetts  Resolves  of  1894,  Ch.  90.  Also  see  64th  An.  Rcpt. 
Mass.  Bd.  Educ.,  1899-1900,  p.  17. 

34  See  Statistical  Table  20,  Re  pi.  U.  S.  Com.  Educ.,  1902,  I,  p.  xcii. 


60  School  Funds  and  their  Apportionment 

funds.     Missouri,  for  example,  has  a  series  of  funds,  as  is  shown 
by  the  following  tabular  statement35  for  19x54: 

Permanent  State  School  Funds $3,J59,i73-4o 

Seminary  Funds 1,243,099.63 

County  School  Funds 4,669,209.58 

Township  School  Funds 2.415,149.90 

Special  District  School  Funds 1,664,739.57 


Total  School  Funds  of  the  State $13,151,372.68 

A  number  of  cities  in  various  parts  of  the  country  possess  prop- 
erty or  funds  which  also  produce  a  certain  fixed  income.36 

In  some  states  the  state  endowments  originally  set  apart  for 
education  have  been  lost  or  spent  by  the  state  for  other  purposes, 
and  are  to-day  only  "  a  perpetual  obligation  "  37  upon  which  the 

^  An.  Kept.  Supt.  Pub.  Instr.,  Mo.,  1904,  p.  38.  See  also  Table  No.  16, 
further  on  in  this  chapter. 

Texas  also  has  large  county  school  fund-;,  as  have  a  number  of  other 
states. 

36  San   Francisco,   for  example,  owns  a  number  of  valuable  lots   with 
business  houses  on  them  in  the  heart  of  the  business  section  of  the  city. 

37  "The  debt  due  by  the  State  to  the  free  school  fund  is  hereby  de- 
clared to  be  the  sum  of  $1,130,867.51  in  principal,  and  shall  be  kept  on  the 
books  of  the  auditor  and  treasurer  to  the  credit  of  the  several  townships 
entitled  to  the  same ;  the  said  principal  being  the  proceeds  of  the  sales  of 
lands  heretofore  granted  by  the  United  States  for  the  use  and  support  of 
free  public  schools,  and  shall  be  and  remain  a  perpetual  fund,  on  which  the 
State    shall   pay   an   annual    interest   of   four  per   cent."      Constitution   of 
Louisiana,  Art.  257. 

"  The  bond  of  the  Commonwealth,  issued  in  favor  of  the  Board  of  Edu- 
cation for  the  sum  of  $1,337,000.00,  shall  constitute  one  bond  of  the  Com- 
monwealth in  favor  of  the  Board  of  Education,  and  ....  shall  be  held 
inviolate  for  the  purpose  of  sustaining  the  system  of  Common  Schools." 
Constitution  of  Kentucky,  Sec.  184. 

"  The  General  Assembly  shall  make  provision,  by  law,  for  the  payment 
of  the  interest  of  said  school  fund."  ('Law  provides  six  per  cent.)  Ibid., 
Sec.  185. 

"  The  permanent  school  fund  of  the  State  shall  be  $1,500,000,  ascer- 
tained and  declared  by  Section  946  of  the  Code,  and  recognized  by  the 
Constitution  of  the  State  to  be  the  permanent  school  fund.  To  this  shall 
be  added  the  interest  which  has  accrued  on  the  same,  and  not  paid  by  the 
State,  amounting,  on  the  first  of  January,  1873,  to  $1,012,500,  making  the 
entire  permanent  State  school  fund  $2,512,500.  For  this  $2,512,500  a  cer- 
tificate of  indebtedness  shall  be  issued  .  .  .  and  shall  provide  for  the  pay- 


Permanent  Endowment  Funds  61 

state  pays  a  state  tax  under  the  name  of  "  an  annual  interest." 
In  reality  such  "  interest  "  does  not  differ  from  a  required  annual 
state  appropriation  for  schools,  such  as  exists  in  Pennsylvania,88 
a  state  which  has  no  permanent  school  fund.  In  Rhode  Island 
the  income  is  fixed  by  law  at  a  definite  amount,  and  what  is  lack- 
ing is  made  up  'by  money  from  the  treasury.39  This  is  also  true 
in  a  few  other  states. 

The  Annual  Reports  of  the  United  States  Commissioner  of 
Education  each  year  contain  a  statement  of  the  principal  and  in- 
come of  the  permanent  endowment  funds  of  the  various  states  of 
the  Union.40  The  amount  of  the  income  as  given,  however,  in- 
cludes the  income  from  permanent  county,  township,  and  local 
funds  as  well  as  the  income  from  the  permanent  state  school 
fund.  The  township  funds  vary  greatly  in  amount,  due  to 
variations  in  the  value  of  the  original  township  school  sections, 
the  prices  for  which  these  lands  were  sold,  and  the  care  with 
which  the  funds  have  been  administered.  The  county  funds, 
likewise,  vary  greatly  in  amount.  Hence  it  naturally  happens 
that  the  amount  received  per  census  child  or  per  teacher  varies 
greatly,  and  probably  nowhere  equals  the  amount  which  would 
be  obtained  from  the  U.  S.  Bureau  figures.  This  is  well  shown 
by  a  comparison  of  the  first  eight  counties,  in  alphabetical  order, 

ment  of  interest  thereon  at  the  rate  of  six  per  cent,  semi-annually."  Ten- 
nessee Laws  of  1873,  Ch.  25;  School  Laws  of  Tennessee,  1895,  Sec.  34. 

Figured  out  from  State  valuations  for  1904  these  are  equal  to  an  annual 
State  school  tax  of  i^c.  on  the  $100  in  Kentucky;  ij^c.  in  Louisiana; 
and  4^c.  in  Tennessee. 

38  "  The  General  Assembly  shall  provide  for  the  maintenance  and  sup- 
port of  a  thorough  and  efficient  system  of  public  schools,  wherein  all  of 
the  children  of  the  Comonwealth,  above  the  age  of  six  years,  may  be  edu- 
cated, and  shall  appropriate  at  least  $1,000,000  each  year  for  that  purpose." 
Constitution  of  Pennsylvania,  Art.  X,  Sec.  I. 

The  State  appropriation  for  common  schools  for  1902-03  was  $5,525,000. 
The  sum  of  $25,000  was  also  appropriated  for  township  high  schools. 
Kept.  Supt.  Pub.  Instr.,  Pa.,  1903,  p.  17. 

39  "The  sum  of  $120,000  shall  be  annually  paid  out  of  the  income  of 
the  permanent  school   fund  and   from  other  money  in  the  Treasury  for 
the  support  of  public  schools  in  the  several  towns  on  the  order  of  the 
Commissioner  of  Public  Schools."     General  Laws  of  Rhode  Island,   Ch. 
53,  Sec.  i. 

40  Kept.  U.  S.  Com.  Educ.,  1902,  I,  Commissioner's  Introduction,  Tables 
12  and  20. 


62  School  Funds  and  their  Apportionment 

of  the  State  of  Missouri,  a  state  having  state,  county,  township, 
and  special  district  permanent  funds. 

TABLE  No.  16. 

VALUE   OF  THE  INCOME  FROM    PERMANENT   FUNDS   IN    EIGHT    MISSOURI 

COUNTIES. 

(Calculated   from  the  returns  of  County   Clerks  for  the  year   1901-02,   as 
given  in  the  Rept.  Supt.  Pub.  Instr.,  Mo,,  1902,  p.  34.) 

Per  capita  value  on  census,  6-20  years,  of  income  from: 

County.                   State  Fund  and  County         Township     Total  from 

Tax  @  $1.29.  Funds.            Funds.        all  Funds. 

Adair $1.29  $  .49                $  .16               $1.94 

Andrew 1.29  .71                   .27                 2.27 

Atchison 1.29  1.45                   .31                 3.05 

Audrain 1.29  .27                   .29                 1.85 

Barry 1.29  .23                    .20                  1.72 

Barton  * 1.29  .79                    .45                  2.53 

Bates 1.29  .45                   .33                 2.07 

Benton 1.29  .26                  .23                 1.78 

*  Income  from  Special  District  Funds  in  this  county  =  $36.75. 

The  inequalities  produced  by  the  existence  of  these  local  town- 
ship funds  are  common  in  every  state  in  which  they  have  not 
been  gathered  up  into  the  general  state  fund,  and,  where  this  has 
not  been  done,  but  few  states  have  made  any  attempt  to  effect  an 
equalization  by  considering  their  existence  in  apportioning  school 
funds.  In  the  Western  states  these  have  been  united  with  the 
State  School  Fund,  as  they  should  be  in  all  cases.  The  work  of 
Arkansas  in  this  connection  is  worthy  of  particular  mention. 
(See  Chapter  IX,  foot-note  7.) 

However  large  the  permanent  endowments  for  education  may 
seem  in  the  gross  amounts,  the  per-capita  income,  except  in  a 
few  states,  is  so  small  as  to  enable  the  state  to  render  but  little 
service  in  the  general  support  of  the  educational  system.  In  the 
states  having  the  largest  endowments  it  will  probably  happen 
that,  in  time,  the  per-capita  income,  due  to  decreasing  interest 
rates  and  to  the  rapid  increase  in  school  population,  will  slowly 
decrease  rather  than  increase,  notwithstanding  the  increase  in 
the  principal  of  the  funds.  Eyen  though  the  per-capita  income 
from  these  funds  should  continue  to  increase  it  will  almost 
certainly  happen  that  they  will  come  to  bear  a  decreasing  pn> 
portion  of  the  cost  of  education,  due  to  the  rapid  per-capita  in- 
crease in  its  cost.  The  experience  of  a  few  states  in  recent  years 
may  serve  to  illustrate  this : 


Permanent  Endowment  Funds 


Per 

capita  on  census. 

Total 

Value  of 

Income 

Cost  for 

school  fund. 

all  funds. 

distributed. 

schools. 

$10,218,432.19 

$13.90 

$-83 

10,222,792.24 

13.63 

.82 

$10.25 

10,303,184.01 

13-63 

.82 

10.39 

10,312,015.27 

13.64 

.82 

10.83 

io,359,969-05 

13.70 

.82 

10.82 

10,390,326.33 

I3-7I 

.82 

11.14 

10,443,885.34 

13.70 

.82 

12.34 

10,498,716.09 

13-68 

.82 

12.90 

The  past  eight  years  in  Indiana  have  resulted  in  the  following 
changes. 

TABLE  No.  17. 

INDIANA   PERMANENT   FUNDS   FOR   EIGHT   YEARS. 

(A  combination  of  Tables  D  and  H,  pp.  186  and  188,  in  Education  in  Indi- 
ana, an  official  monograph  prepared  for  the  Louisiana  Purchase  Ex- 
position of  1904,  by  the  Supt.  Pub.  Instr.  for  Indiana.) 


Year.  Census, 

6-21  years. 
1896... .....  734,640 

1897 749,902 

1898 754,945 

1899 755,698 

1900 756,004 

1901 757,684 

1902 761,801 

1903 767,436 


In  the  State  of  Missouri  the  Constitution  requires  41  and  the 
laws  of  the  State  provide  for  42  the  creation  of  a  state  "  public 
school  fund,  the  annual  income  of  which,  *  *  *  together  with 
not  less  than  25%  of  the  State  revenue,  shall  be  applied  to  the 
support  of  public  schools  *  to  be  apportioned  as  hereinafter 
provided."  This  apportionment  is  to  be  made  on  the  basis  of  the 
number  of  school-census  children  in  the  state,  6-20  years  of  age.43 
Since  1887,  the  Legislature  has  set  apart  one-third  of  the  State 
revenue  for  the  support  of  schools.  In  the  next  table  44  we  give 
the  income  from  the  state  school  fund  alone  and  from  the  state 
school  fund  together  with  one-third  of  the  state's  taxes,45 
in  two  columns,  side  by  side.  We  also  give  the  annual  per- 
capita  on  census  apportionments  of  the  income  from  the  state 
school  fund  of  Kansas,46  and  the  per-capita  on  census  value  of  the 

41  Constitution  of  Missouri,  Art.  XI,  Sec.  7. 

42  Mo.  Rev.  Stat.,  1899,  Ch.  154,  Art.  I,  Sec.  9819. 

43  Ibid.,  Sec.  9840. 

44  Calculated  by  dividing  the  total  income  by  the  number  of  census  chil- 
dren for  the  years  indicated.     Data  taken  from  the  annual  reports. 

45  Amounts  taken  from  the  An.  Repts.  State  Supt.  Pub.  Instr.,  Mo. 

46  Amounts  taken  from  the  Bien.  Repts.  State  Supt.  Pub.  Instr.,  Kan. 


64  School  Funds  and  their  Apportionment 

income  from  both  state  and  county  funds  for  the  State  of 
Texas,47  a  state  with  a  permanent  fund  about  three  times  as 
large  as  that  of  any  other  state  in  the  Union. 

TABLE  No.  18. 

INCOME   FROM    PERMANENT    FUNDS    IN    THREE    STATES. 

Year.                                   Missouri*  Missouri.^  Kansas.  Texas.$. 

1896 $.19                  $.96  $2.69 

1897 19                      .90  $.80  3.00 

1898 19                      -93  -88  3.02 

i899 *9  -94  .85  3-41 

1900 18  i.oo  .89  2.89 

1901 18  1. 10  .78  3.49 

1902 18  1.20  .83  3.28 

1903 18  1.26  .79  3-69 

1904 18  1.29  .82 

*  State  School  Fund  alone. 

t  School  Fund  and  one-third  of  the  State  taxes. 

$  Income  from  State  and  County  Funds. 

It  is  possible  that  the  income  from  the  permanent  endowment 
funds  of  Texas,  due  to  their  including  about  nineteen  million 
acres  of  unsold  lands,  may  keep  increasing  as  rapidly  in  propor- 
tion to  the  total  cost  of  education  as  the  expansion  and  cost  of 
education  itself,  "but  this  is  hardly  possible  in  any  other  state.48 
In  Indiana,  Missouri,  and  Kansas,  the  income  from  the  endow- 
ment funds  is  already  insignificant,  and  is  each  year  bearing  a 
smaller  and  smaller  fraction  of  the  total  cost  of  education.  The 
same  is  true  generally.49 

47  Calculated    as    in    the   case   of    Missouri,    from   data   given    in   Public 
Education  in  Texas,  a  bulletin  issued  by  the  Dept.  Pub.  Instr.,  Texas,  1904. 

48  Much  care  has  to  be  used  in  distinguishing  between  what  is  real  in- 
come  from  permanent   funds   and    what   is   only   taxation   in    some    form, 
and  this  is  not  always  easy  to  do.     Many  of  the  state  reports  are  unin- 
tentionally  somewhat   misleading   unless   analyzed    quite   carefully,   as    the 
income  from  permanent  funds  has  often  been  supplemented  by  adding  to 
the  fund  something  which  is  really  a  form  of  state  school  taxation.     Any 
statement  of  apportionments  which  shows  a  rapid  increase  during  the  last 
ten  or  fifteen  years  needs  to  be  scrutinized  carefully. 

49  According  to  .a  table  given  in  the  Report  of  the  U.  S.  Commissioner 
of  Education  for  1902  (Vol.  I,  Introd.,  table  13.     This  table  gives  percent- 


Permanent  Endowment  Funds  65 

Though  the  total  value  of  these  permanent  endowments  in  the 
different  states  and  territories,  including  estimated  value  of  lands, 
is  about  three  hundred  millions  of  dollars,  the  income  averages 
less  than  fifty  cents  for  each  school-census  child,  5-18  years  of 
age.50  It  is  easy  to  see  from  the  figures  which  have  been  given, 
that  these  endowments  for  education,  often  originally  intended 
to  maintain,  with  local  taxation,  the  schools  of  the  state,  are 
entirely  insufficient,  except  in  a  few  states  having  large  endow- 
ments or  few  people,  to  relieve  in  any  effective  way  the  burdens 
of  local  taxation,  so  long  at  least  as  the  income  is  distributed 
on  the  very  democratic  principle  of  an  equal  division  to  all 
communities  on  the  basis  of  the  number  of  census  children  to 
be  educated.  As  it  seems  seldom  to  have  occurred  to  any  one 
to  distribute  the  income  on  any  essentially  different  basis,51  and 
as  most  of  the  states  have  thought  it  desirable  to  increase  the 
length  of  term,  remove  tuition  fees,  and  help  the  poorer  com- 
munities to  maintain  their  schools,  recourse  has  been  had  to  some 
form  of  general  taxation  for  support.  By  taxing  all  on  the  basis 
of  wealth  more  money  has  been  provided  to  be  distributed  to 
all  on  the  basis  of  the  number  of  children  to  be  educated.  The 
result  has  been  the  development  of  state  and  county  taxation 
for  education. 

ages  for  each  state),  the  proportion  of  the  whole  revenue  derived  from 
permanent  funds  and  rentals  was  as  follows : 

United  States 4.2%         South  Central  States. . .   14.5% 

North  Atlantic  States  . . .   1.0%         North  Central  States...     5.6% 

South  Atlantic  States  . . .  3.5%         Western  States 4.0% 

The  South  Central  group  includes  Texas,  with  31.7%,  and  Oklahoma,  with 
25.8%,  though  the  latter  is  misleading,  because  it  includes  the  income 
from  taxes  as  well  as  state  and  county  funds. 

60  The  amount  varies,  in  the  different  states,  from  a  few  dollars  to  a 
fraction  of  a  cent  per  census  child,  being  less  than  a  dollar. in  nearly  all 
the  states  having  the  largest  funds.  See  Statistical  Tables  in  Kept.  U.  S. 
Com.  Educ.,  Vol.  I,  for  any  year. 

51  Massachusetts,  a  pioneer  in  most  educational  movements,  first  changed 
from  the  straight  census  to  a  combination  basis  in  1866,  and  first  gave  up 
the  use  of  census  entirely  and  began  a  distribution  to  the  towns  most  de- 
serving aid  in  1874. 


CHAPTER  VI 
GENERAL  TAXATION  FOR  EDUCATION 

THE  income  from  permanent  endowment  funds  being  insuffi- 
cient, with  what  could  be  raised  by  local  taxation,  to  meet  the 
minimum  demands  set  by  the  state,  most  states  have  provided  for 
some  form  of  state  or  county  general  taxation  for  the  support 
of  their  public  educational  system.  The  idea  underlying  general 
taxation  for  education  is,  in  a  certain  sense,  the  idea  of  the  pool- 
ing of  effort  for  the  support  of  what  is  believed  to  be  for  the 
,  general  good  of  all.  Permissive  local  taxation  marks  the  first 
step  toward  the  public  school  idea.  The  people  of  a  district  agree 
to  a  tax  themselves  to  maintain  a  school,  paying  in  proportion  to 
the  value  of  their  property  and  sharing  in  proportion  to  the 
number  of  children  each  has  to  send  to  school.  Some  may  share 
who  do  not  pay  and  some  may  pay  who  do  not  share.1  It  is  a  co- 
operative effort  to  maintain  what  is  believed  to  be  for  the  common 
good  of  the  community. 

The  first  step  in  advance  from  district  taxation  is  town  or 
township  taxation,  in  which  the  people  of  the  whole  town,  or 
township,  agree  to  share  equally  in  the  maintenance  of  all  the 
schools  of  the  town,  or  township.  This  is  a  distinctly  broader 
conception  of  the  need  and  purpose  of  education  than  the  dis- 
trict idea.  If  wealth  were  even  approximately  evenly  distributed 
this  might  be  the  best  plan  for  maintaining  public  schools,  the 
state  requiring  a  certain  kind  of  school  or  schools  to  be  maintained 
by  each  community,  district,  town,  or  township.  But  as  wealth 
is  not  even  approximately  evenly  distributed,  the  maintaining 
of  schools  by  such  local  effort,  as  has  been  shown  already,  in- 
volves great  hardships  to  those  least  able  to  bear  them.  This 

1  The  first  school  law  in  Ohio,  in  1821,  provided  for  district  taxation, 
but  it  was  not  until  1831  that  non-resident  property-holders  were  also 
taxed  for  maintenance,  and  not  for  many  years  later  that  the  "  fuel  tax  " 
was  shifted  from  the  parent  to  the  school  community.  Orth,  S.  P.,  The 
Centralisation  of  Administration  in  Ohio,  pp.  32-34. 

(66) 


General  Taxation  for  Education  67 

is  very  well  illustrated  by  trie  town  system  of  Massachusetts 
and  Connecticut  (see  Tables  7  and  8  for  the  inequalities  between 
the  towns  of  two  Connecticut  counties)  and  in  part  by  the  town- 
ship system  of  Indiana. 

The  next  step  in  the  evolution  of  a  broader  conception  of  the 
need  and  purpose  of  public  education,  though  not  necessarily 
the  next  step  historically,  is  when  the  people  of  a  county  agree 
b  to  pool  their  efforts,  in  whole  or  in  part,  to  maintain  the  schools 
of  the  county,  the  -wealthier  districts,  or  towns,  or  townships  help- 
ing the  poorer  ones  to  maintain  a  system  of  education  believed 
to  be  for  the  general  good  of  the  county.  General  county  taxa- 
tion represents  a  big  advance  in  the  equalization  of  the  advantages 
and  burdens  of  education  beyond  mere  district,  or  even  town  or 
township  taxation.  It  is  at  this  point -in  the  evolution  of  a  sys- 
tem of  general  support  that  a  number  of  western  states  have 
stopped. 

County  taxation  for  education  not  only  marks  a  broader  con- 
ception of  the  need  and  purpose  of  education,  but  also  tends 
(.  greatly  to  equalize  the  burdens  of  supporting  good  schools.  This 
can  be  easily  understood  by  referring  to  Tables  No.  7  and  No.  8, 
Ch.  IV,  giving  data  for  two  Connecticut  counties.  The  extremes 
of  taxation  necessary  to  provide  $250  a  year  by  local  taxation  for 
each  school  (teacher  employed),  as  shown  by  the  above-mentioned 
tables,  are  8.41  mills  and  1.35  mills  for  Windham  County,  and 
4.90  mills  and  .88  mills  for  Fairfield  County,  while  the  averages 
for  the  two  counties  would  be  but  2.68  mills  and  1.42  mills,  re- 
spectively. Even  a  small  county  tax,  if  it  were  properly  distrib- 
uted, assuming  that  there  is  to  be  no  other  form  of  aid,  would 
greatly  equalize  the  burdens  and  advantages  to  the  towns  in  either 
county,  without  being  a  burden  to  any  town. 

This  county  tax  plan  of  co-operation  for  school  support  is  com- 
mon throughout  the  west  and  south,  but  is  not  found  in  the 
North  Atlantic  or  the  North  Central  groups  of  states,  except  in 
Minnesota,  where  it  is  really  only  a  compulsory  district  tax ;  * 

2  "  The  County  Commissioners  shall  also  levy  an  annual  tax  of  one  mill, 
to  be  known  as  the  local  mill  tax,"  ...  to  be  collected  and  "paid  into 
the  'county  treasury  for  the  support  of  public  schools,  to  be  apportioned 
by  the  county  auditor,  who  shall  distribute  to  each  school  district,  or  por- 
tion thereof,  the  amount  of  tax  collected  in  said  district  or  portion  of 
district  in  his  county."  Rev.  Stat.  Minn.,  1904,  Sec.  3768,  as  amended, 
1897,  Ch.  75- 


68  School  Funds  and  their  Apportionment 

in  Alabama,  where  it  is  only  a  compulsory  district  and  race  poll 
tax ; 3  in  South  Dakota,  where  it  is  only  a  county  poll  tax  for 
distribution  on  census ; 4  in  North  Dakota,  where  it  is  both  a 
a  poll  tax  and  a  two-mill  county  tax ;  5  and  in  Iowa,  where  it  is  a 
compulsory  one  to  three-mill  tax.6  In  extremes,  the  tax  varies 
from  a  purely  optional  tax,  as  in  Kentucky ;  7  a  tax  to  be  returned 
to  the  districts  paying,  as  in  Minnesota ; 2  a  simple  poll  tax  of  one 
dollar,  as  in  South  Dakota ; 4  a  tax  required  only  to  make  up  a 
deficiency  in  the  minimum  term  of  school,  as  in  North  Carolina ; 8 
a  maximum  permissive  tax,  as  in  Wyoming ;  9  a  required  tax 

3  Each  township,  school  district,  and  race  receives  back  the  poll  taxes 
paid  by  it.    Ala.  Code  of  1897,  Ch.  100,  Art.  9,  Sees.  3607,  3608. 

4  "  The  county  commissioners  of  each  county  shall  levy  a  tax  of  one 
dollar  on  each  elector  in  the  county  for  the  support  of  the  common  schools, 
and  no  property  shall  be  exempt  from "   collection,   and   such   "  shall  be 
distributed  to  the  several  school  corporations  in  the  county  in  proportion 
•to  the  number  of  children  resident  in   the  territory  of  each,  over  six  or 
under  twenty-one  years  of  age."    5*.  Dak.  Laws  of  1901,  Art.  8,  Sec.  2376. 

5  "  The  county  auditor  of  each  county  shall  .  .  .  levy  a  tax  of  one  dollar 
on  each  elector  in  the  county  for  the  support  of  common  schools,  and  a 
further   tax  of  two   mills   on   the   dollar  on   all   taxable   property    in   the 
county,  ...  to  be  apportioned  by  the  County  Superintendent  of  Schools 
among  the  school  districts  of  the  county."     Rev.  Stat.  N.  Dak.,  1899,  Art. 
8;  Sec.  722,  div.  i. 

6  "  The  Board  of  Supervisors  shall  also  levy  a  tax  for  the  support  of 
the  schools  within  the  county  of  not  less  'than  one  nor  more  than  three 
mills  on  the  dollar  on  the  assessed  value  of  all  taxable  property  within 
the  county."     Iowa  Code  of  1897,  Sec.  2807;  School  Laws  of  Iowa,  1902, 
Sec.  2807. 

7  On  a  petition  of  twenty-five  per  cent  of  the  tax-paying  voters  of  the 
county,  the  county  judge  shall  order  an  election  to  determine  whether  the 
county  shall  tax  itself  annually  in  any  sum  not  over  fifteen  cents  on  the 
hundred  dollars,  or  a  poll  tax  of  not  over  fifty  cents,  or  both,  "  for  the 
purpose  of  extending  the  terms  of  the  common  schools  in  the  county." 
Majority  voting  carries.     Cities  exempt.     Digest  of  a  Kentucky  law,  ap- 
proved Mav  21  st,  1902. 

8  "  If  the  tax  levied  by  the  State  for  the  support  of  public  schools  shall 
be  insufficient  to  maintain  one  or  more  schools  in  each  school  district  for 
the  period  of  four  months,  then  the  Board   of   Commissioners   of  each 
county  shall  levy  annually  a  special  tax  to  supply  the  deficiency  ...  for 
said  period  of  four  months  or  more,  .  .  .  and  the  funds  thus  raised  shall 
be  expended  ...  in  such  manner  as  the  County  Board  of  Education  may 
determine."    Pub.  Sch.  Law  of  N.  Car.,  1901,  Sec.  6. 

9  "  The  County  Commissioners  shall  annually  levy  a  tax  for  the  support 


General  Taxation  for  Education  69 

with  maximum  and  minimum  limits  stated,  as  in  Arizona;10  to 
a  definite  minimum  tax  per  child  to  be  educated,  as  in  Oregon  " 
and  in  California.12  Combinations  of  two  or  more  forms  exist 
in  some  of  the  states. 

A  few  other  states  have  at  some  time  in  their  history,  levied  a 
county  tax,  but  have  abandoned  it  for  general  state  taxation. 
For  example,  Ohio  levied  a  county  school  tax  between  1825  and 
1839,  and  had  an  optional  county  tax  law  from  1839  to  1853; 1S 
and  Indiana  had  a  form  of  optional  county  taxation  for  schools 
between  1849  an<^  1852. 14  On  the  other  hand,  some  of  the  older 
northern  states  have  never  had  county  school  taxation,  having 

of  common  schools  in  their  county,  not  to  exceed  three  mills  on  the  dollar. 
.  .  .  An  additional  tax  of  two  dollars  for  each  person  between  the  ages  of 
twenty-one  and  fifty  years  shall  be  annually  levied  for  county  school  pur- 
poses." Wyo.  Ses.  Laws,  1895,  Ch.  102. 

10  "The  Board  of  Supervisors  of  each  county  shall  annually  .  .  .  levy  a 
county  school  tax  of  not  less  than  fifty  nor  more  than  ninety  cents  on 
each  one  hundred  dollars  valuation  of  taxable  property,"  ...  to  be  col- 
lected and  "  paid  into  the  treasury  of  the  county  to  the  credit  of  the  county 
school  fund."    Laws  of  Arizona,  1901,  Title  17,  Ch.  14,  Sees.  119,  120. 

11  "The  County  Courts  of  the  several  counties  of  this  State  are  hereby 
required  to  levy,  at  the  same  time  they  levy  other  taxes,  a  tax  upon  all  the 
taxable  property  in  their  counties  for  school  purposes,  which  shall  aggre- 
gate an  amount  which   shall  be  at  least  six  dollars  per   capita   for   each 
and  all  of  the  children  within  the  county,  between  the  ages  of  four  and 
twenty  years,  as   shown   by  the  last  preceding  school   census.      Code   of 
Oregon,  Sec.  3374. 

12  The  County  Superintendent  of  each  county  shall  estimate  the  mini- 
mum amount  of  money  needed  by  estimating  five  hundred  dollars  for  each 
teacher  and   deducting  the  estimated   State  apportionment,  the  remainder 
being   the   minimum   county   school   fund   needed,    "  provided   that  if  this 
amount  is  less  than  sufficient  to  raise  a  sum  equal  to  seven  dollars  for 
each  census  child  in  the  county,  then  the  minimum  amount  shall  be  such 
a  sum  as  will  be  equal   to   seven  dollars   for  each   census   child   in   the 
county." 

"  The  Board  of  Supervisors  of  each  county  .  .  .  must  annually  .  .  .  levy 
a  tax,  to  be  known  as  the  county  school  tax,  the  maximum  rate  of  which 
must  not  exceed  fifty  cents  on  each  one  hundred  dollars  of  taxable  prop- 
erty in  the  county,  nor  the  minimum  rate  less  than  sufficient  to  raise  a 
minimum  amount  reported  by  the  County  Superintendent.''  Political  Code 
of  Cal,  Pt.  Ill,  Ch.  Ill,  Art.  XVIII,  Sees.  1817,  1818. 

13  Orth,  S.  P.,  The  Centralisation  of  Administration  in  Ohio,  p.  34. 

14  Rawles,  W.  A.,  Centralizing  Tendencies  in  the  Administration  of  In- 
diana, pp.  64-66. 


70  School  Funds  and  their  Apportionment 

passed  from  the  district  tax  directly  to  a  state  school  tax.  A  num- 
ber of  states  have  found  it  desirable  to  combine  both  methods. 

The  next  step  in  the  evolution  of  a  broader  general  conception 
of  the  need  and  purpose  of  a  system  of  public  education  is  that  in 
which  the  people  of  a  whole  state  agree  to  pool  their  efforts,  in 
part,  to  help  to  maintain  a  good  system  of  schools  throughout  the 
state,  the  wealthier  counties  and  cities  helping  the  poorer  ones  to 
share  the  burden  of  maintaining  that  which  has  come  to  be  gener- 
ally recognized  as  existing  for  the  common  good  of  all.  In  some 
form  or  other  this  idea  has  been  adopted,  to  a  greater  or  less 
degree,  by  all  the  territories  and  by  all  but  nine  of  the  states 
of  the  Union. 

In  most  of  the  states  which  have  not  yet  considered  it  advisable 
to  make  a  state  appropriation  for  schools  or  to  levy  some  form  of 
a  state  school  tax,  the  proposition  has  been  under  consideration  at 
some  time  within  recent  years,15  and  in  each  of  the  nine  states 
which  levy  no  state  school  tax  a  state  university  is  maintained. 

The  states  making  no  appropriation  and  levying  no  state  tax 
for  the  maintenance  of  public  education,  with  the  amount  of  in- 
come from  permanent  school  funds,  are  as  follows : 16 

15  See,  for  example,  the  following  reports: 

I2th  Bien.  Kept.  Supt.  Pub.  Instr.,  Kan.,  1899-1900,  pp.  15-16,  where  a 
two  mill  tax  is  recommended. 

Bien.  Rept.  State  Supt.  Pub.  Instr.,  Idaho,  1901-1902,  p.  5,  where  a  one 
mill  tax  is  recommended. 

Bien.  Rept.  Supt.  Pub.  Instr.,  Iowa,  1901,  p.  21,  where  fifty  dollars  for 
each  graded  school  teacher  is  recommended. 

Bien.  Rept.  Supt.  Pub.  Instr.,  Ore.,  1902,  p.  235,  where  a  tax  on  corpora- 
tions is  recommended. 

16  These  figures  are  calculated  for  the  years  indicated  by  dividing  the 
total  state  apportionment  by  the  total  school  census  on  which  the  appor- 
tionment was  made,  as  given  in  the  reports  of  the  Supts.  of  Pub.  Instr. 
for  the  different  states.      Even  these  amounts  are  often  larger  than  the 
actual  income  from  invested  funds,  due  to  the  addition  of  certain  items, 
such  as  escheats,  state  fines,  etc.,  to  the  yearly  income  before  making  the 
apportionment. 


General  Taxation  for  Education  71 

TABLE  No.  19. 

STATES    WITH    ONLY   THE   INCOME   FROM    PERMANENT   FUNDS. 

Income  from  Census  on  Value  per 

State.                   Year.               permanent  which  Appt.  census 

funds.  made.  child. 

Kansas 1904               $408,130.80  497,898  $  .82 

Iowa  * 1903                 214,125.00  721,486  .30 

North  Dakota  * 1901                  164,296.66  97,O5S  1.75 

South  Dakota  *....   1902                 357,392.09  128,392  2.78 

Wyoming  * 1902                    67,449.90  15,764  4-^7 

Colorado  * 1904                 1 79,093-94  179,475  LOO 

Idaho  * 1902                   67,614.87  59,78o  1.13 

Utah  * 1902                 331,05379  87,189  3.79 

Oregon  * 1904                 241,234.48  143,757  1.68 

*  A  county  school  tax  is  levied  in  this  state. 

Tennessee  is  usually  classed  as  levying  a  state  school  tax, 
though  the  state  one-mill  tax  levied  is  in  reality  only  a  com- 
pulsory county  tax,  the  proceeds  being  "  paid  over  to  the  County 
Trustee  in  the  County  where  collected,  and  distributed  therein 
according  to  scholastic  population."  17  The  income  from  the 
"  permanent  school  fund  "  is  also  raised  by  general  taxation,  be- 
ing equal  to  a  further  general  tax  of  four  and  one-half  cents  on 
the  hundred  dollars,18  making  a  total  state  school  tax  of  one  and 
forty-five  hundredths  mills  on  the  dollar. 

As  was  said  in  a  preceding  chapter,  the  question  of  levying  a 
state  tax  for  public  education  usually  involved  a  full  discussion 
of  the  whole  principle  of  state  aid  for  education,  and  was  vigor- 
ously contested  in  the  legislature  and  at  the  polls.  When  Henry 
Barnard  was  called  from  Connecticut  and  appointed  State  Super- 
intendent of  Education  in  Rhode  Island,  in  1843,  f°r  the  purpose 
of  organizing  a  school  system  for  the  State,  his  ideas  as  to  taxa- 
tion for  education  met  with  general  opposition.  A  member  of 
the  Legislature  declared  that  "  the  school  act  cannot  be  executed 
at  the  point  of  a  bayonet,"  and  Rhode  Island  citizens  declared 
that  "  he  might  as  well  take  a  man's  ox  to  plough  his  neighbor's 

17  Tennessee  Code  of  1884,  Title  7,  Ch.  2,  Art.  II,  Sec.   1665;  School 
Laws  of  Tennessee,  1895,  Sec.  38. 

18  See  foot-note  37,  Ch.  V. 


72  School  Funds  and  their  Apportionment 

field  as  to  take  a  man's  money  to  educate  his  neighbor's 
children."  19 

In  some  states,  as  for  example  New  York,  the  question  of  a 
state  tax  for  education  was  fought  out  over  the  question  of  the 
abolition  of  the  "  rate  bill,"  the  matter  being  twice  (1840,  1850) 
submitted  to  the  voters  of  the  State  for  a  decision.20  In  other 
states,  as  for  example  Ohio,  the  matter  was  thoroughly  discussed 
by  the  people  and  settled  in  the  Legislature,  resulting,  in  1838, 
in  a  small  annual  tax,  which,  a  few  years  later  (1842)  was  changed 
to  an  annual  appropriation  of  $i5o,ooo.21  In  other  states,  Indiana 
being  a  good  example,  the  fight  was  carried  on  even  more  vigor- 
ously and  only  settled  after  long  and  bitter  discussion. 

The  history  of  the  development  of  a  state  tax  in  Indiana  is 
interesting  and  somewhat  illustrative.  The  first  state  school  tax 
law  was  passed  in  1836,  and  merely  provided  that  the  County 
Boards  should  set  aside  five  per  cent,  of  the  gross  revenue  col- 
lected in  the  county,  for  state  purposes,  and  use  it  for  the  en- 
couragement of  common  schools,  the  same  to  be  divided  among 
the  townships,  in  proportion  to  the  amount  paid  by  each.22.  In 
reality  this  was  nothing  more  than  returning  to  the  townships 
five  per  cent,  of  their  state  taxes,  with  the  provision  that  they 
were  to  use  it  to  educate  their  own  children,  but  even  this 
mild  measure  was  denounced  so  vigorously  that  the  Legislature 
of  the  succeeding  winter  repealed  the  law.  In  1848  the  Legis- 
lature provided  for  a  popular  vote  on  the  much  discussed  ques- 
tion. The  resulting  campaign  was  most  bitter  and  the  result  by 
no  means  decisive,  as  thirty-four  per  cent,  of  the  counties  and 
forty-four  per  cent,  of  the  voters  recorded  themselves  as  opposed 
to  the  idea.23  The  Legislature  of  1849  24  accordingly  provided 
for  a  one-mill  state  tax,  a  twenty-five  cent  poll  tax,  and  a  tax 
of  three  per  cent,  on  insurance  premiums,  the  first  two  items  to 
be  distributed  in  the  counties  where  collected,  and  the  law  not 

19  Address  of  Jas.  L.  Hughes  at  the  celebration  of  the  eighty-seventh 
birthday  of  Henry  Barnard,  Hartford,  Jan.  25,  1897;  in  Kept.  Conn.  Bd. 
Educ.,  1808,  p.  *    165. 

20  Sherwood,  S.,  The  University  of  the  State  of  New  York,  pp.  522-523. 

21  Orth,  S.  P.,  The  Centralization  of  Administration  in  Ohio,  p.  34. 

22  Rawles,  W.  A.,  Centralizing  Tendencies  in  the  Administration  of  In- 
diana, p.  62. 

25  Ibid.,  pp.  63-64.  **/&«/.,  p.  64. 


General  Taxation  for  Education  73 

to  be  put  in  force  in  any  county  except  by  a  previous  affirmative 
vote  of  the  electors.  It  was  in  reality  only  an  optional  county 
tax,  and  was  rejected  by  forty  per  cent,  of  the  counties.  The 
new  constitution  of  1851,  embodying  the  results  of  twenty-five 
years  of  discussion,  though  in  a  somewhat  mildly  worded  form, 
made  it  "  the  duty  of  the  General  Assembly  *  *  to  provide  by 
law  for  a  general  and  uniform  system  of  public  schools,  wherein 
tuition  shall  be  free  and  equally  open  to  all."  25  The  Legisla- 
ture of  1852  accordingly  levied  a  state  one-mill  tax  (ioc.),  to  be 
distributed  to  the  counties  on  the  basis  of  school  census,  a  change 
in  the  method  of  distribution  which,  at  the  time,  created  violent 
opposition.  This  change,  however,  from  the  "  taxes-where-paid  " 
basis  to  the  school  census  basis  of  distribution  marked  the  final 
establishment  for  Indiana  of  the  principle  that  "  the  wealth  of 
the  state  should  be  taxed  to  help  educate  the  children  of  the 
state/' 

The  next  step  in  the  process,  and  the  logical  conclusion  of  the 
whole  matter,  Indiana  has  not  yet  taken.  This  is  equally  true 
of  a  majority  of  the  other  states  of  the  Union.  The  first  step 
in  the  process  was  the  division  of  the  taxes  among  those  who 
had  paid  them,  and  was  nothing  more  than  compulsory  local 
taxation.  The  second  and  present  step  in  the  process  placed 
all  on  a  plane  of  equality  by  dividing  the  taxes  equally  among  all, 
in  proportion  to  the  number  of  children  to  be  educated.  This 
was  a  great  step  in  advance,  and  did  much  to  equalize  both  bur- 
dens and  advantages.  It  is  at  this  stage  in  the  process  of  evolu- 
tion that  a  majority  of  our  states  are  now  resting.  The  next 
step  in  the  process  will  be  an  equitable  division  among  all,  and 
with  more  direct  reference  to  local  needs  and  local  effort. 

In  most  states  the  idea  of  general  taxation  for  the  partial  sup- 
port of  education  is  now  thoroughly  established,  though  almost 
everywhere  it  has  come  slowly  and  has  been  developed  from 
small  beginnings.  California  is  a  good  example  of  this  slow 
development,  though  the  rate  of  school  taxation  in  California  has 
now  gone  beyond  that  of  most  of  the  other  states.  Each  in- 
crease in  the  amount  of  tax  levied  has  marked  a  broadened  state 
conception  of  education,  and  has  been  preceded  by  much  dis- 
cussion, and  at  times  by  appeals  from  the  Legislature  direct  to 

25  Constitution  of  Indiana,  Art.  VIII,  Sec.  I. 


74  School  Funds  and  their  Apportionment 

the  people.      The  evolution  of  the  state  and  county  school  tax 
has  been  as  follows  : 26 

State  School  Tax — 1852,  a  tax  of  50.  on  the  $100  required;  1866,  re- 
quired tax  raised  to  8c. ;  1874,  changed  to  a  minimum  of  $7.00  per  census 
child  (in  1904  this  was  equal  to  a  state  tax  of  17.8  cents). 

County  School  Tax — 1852,  an  optional  county  tax  of  not  over  3c.  on  the 
$100  made  possible ;  1853,  maximum  limit  raised  to  5c.  for  optional  tax ; 
1855,  maximum  limit  for  optional  taxes  raised  to  IDC.  ;  1860,  maximum 
limit  for  optional  tax  raised  to  25c. ;  1864,  maximum  limit  raised  to  30C., 
and  all  counties  now  required  to  levy  a  county  school  tax  of  not  less  than 
$2.00  per  census  child;  1866,  maximum  raised  to  35c.  and  the  minimum 
raised  to  $3.00  per  census  child ;  1879,  maximum  raised  to  5oc. ;  1884,  mini- 
mum raised  to  $4.00  per  census  child;  1893,  minimum  raised  to  $6.00  per 
census  -child;  1905,  minimum  raised  to  $7.00  per  census  child.27 

In  character  the  state  school  appropriation  or  tax  levied  'by 
the  different  states  varies  much.  In  New  Hampshire,  Massa- 
chusetts, Rhode  Island,  and  Connecticut,  the  tax  is  in  the  form 
of  a  number  of  relatively  small  appropriations,  from  the  State 
Treasury  to  supplement  the  income  from  the  state  school  fund, 
and  is  used  to  help  the  poorer  towns  to  maintain  their  schools,28 
to  maintain  high  schools  or  pay  high  school  tuition,29  to  em«- 
ploy  a  superintendent  of  schools,30  to  maintain  evening  schools,81 
and  in  Connecticut  an  additional  grant  to  all  towns  of  $2.25  per 
census  child  is  made  direct  from  the  State  Treasury.32  In  North 
Carolina  $200,000  is  granted  annually  from  the  State  Treasury, 
by  a  new  law,  one-half  to  be  divided  equally  on  census  and  the 
other  half  to  be  used  in  helping  poor  districts  to  maintain  a  four 
months'  school.33  In  New  York,34  Pennsylvania,35  and  Georgia,38 

26  Swett,  John,  History  of  the  Public  School  System  of  California,  pp. 
12-65,  for  abstract  and  summary  of  legislation  to  1876;  and  the  Repts.  of 
the  Supts.  of  Pub.  Instr.  of  Cal.  since  1876. 

27  California  Acts  of  1905. 

28  New  Hampshire;  Massachusetts;  Connecticut 

29  New  Hampshire;  Massachusetts;  Rhode  Island;  Connecticut. 

30  New  Hampshire;  Massachusetts;  Rhode  Island;  Connecticut. 

31  Gen.  Stat.  Conn.,  Sec.  2148. 

32  Gen.  Stat.  Conn.,  Sec.  2257. 

33  See  foot-note  5,  Chapter  XIII. 

34  "There  shall  be  raised  by  tax,  in  each  year,  upon  the  real  and  per- 
sonal estate  of  each  county  within  the  State,  such  sum  as  the  Legislature 


General  Taxation  for  Education  75 

large  sums  are  appropriated  each  year  by  the  Legislature  to  as- 
sist in  maintaining  the  state's  public  school  system.  The  plan  of 
definite  appropriations  provides  a  fixed  annual  sum,  but  it  is  defec- 
tive in  that  this  sum  does  not  necessarily  bear  any  direct  rela- 
tion to  the  changes,  from  year  to  year,  in  the  wealth  of  the 
state  or  in  the  number  of  children  to  be  educated.37 

The  plan  in  use  in  most  of  the  states  is  that  of  a  definite  rate 
of  taxation,  often  known  as  the  "  mill  rate/'  the  amount  in 
mills  varying  in  the  different  states  using  the  plan  from  seven- 
shall  annually  determine  necessary  for  the  support  of  common  schools  in 
the  State."  The  Con-sol  Sch.  Law  of  N.  Y.,  Title  II,  Art.  i,  Sec.  i. 

For  the  year  1901-02  the  entire  State  appropriation  to  the  Department 
of  Public  Instruction  for  all  purposes  was  $4,625,700.  Kept.  Supt.  Pub. 
Instr.,  N.  Y.,  1902,  I,  p.  ix. 

35  As  required  by  Art.  X,  Sec.  i,  of  the  State  Constitution  of  Pennsyl- 
vania. See  foot-note  38,  Ch.  V. 

For  the  year  ending  June  i,  1903,  the  State  appropriations  were  as  fol- 
lows :  For  common  schools,  $5,525,000.  This  is  equal  to  about  five  dollars 
per  census  child,  6-16  years  of  age.  $25,000  was  also  appropriated  for  aid 
to  township  high  schools,  and  $200,000  for  normal  school  tuition. 

86  For  the  year  1902  the  amount  appropriated  by  direct  levy  was  $800,- 
ooo,  and  in  addition  poll  taxes,  rental  of  the  Western  and  Atlantic  railway, 
licenses,  certain  fees,  and  specific  taxes,  brought  the  State's  appropriation 
up  to  a  total  of  $1,538,955,  or  $2.31^  per  census  child  6-18  years  of  age. 
See  Kept.  Dept.  Educ.  Ga.,  1902,  p.  26.  Also  see  Georgia  Acts  of  1887,  p. 
79,  or  Compiled  School  Laws  of  1903,  Pt.  V,  Sec.  38. 

37  This  may  be  illustrated  by  comparison  of  conditions  in  both  states 
making  large  legislative  appropriations  for  education. 

In  New  York,  previous  to  1902,  the  legislative  grant  was  in  the  form  of 
a  state  tax  of  a  fraction  of  a  mill,  the  fraction  being  determined  by  the 
Legislature  each  year.  Since  1901  the  legislative  grant  has  been  in  the 
form  of  a  direct  appropriation  from  the  Treasury.  There  has  been  a 
constant  tendency  toward  a  shrinkage  in  the  appropriation.  During  the 
six  years  between  1895  and  1901  the  total  state  tax  appropriated  to  the 
Department  of  Public  Instruction  increased  only  1.9%,  while  the  wealth  of 
the  state  increased  27%,  the  total  population  of  the  state  increased  21%, 
and  the  amount  paid  for  teachers'  salaries  increased  66%.  Kept.  Supt.  Pub. 
Instr.,  N.  Y.,  1902,  I,  p.  ix. 

In  Pennsylvania,  but  not  including  the  city  of  Philadelphia,  during  the 
eight  years  betwen  1895  and  1903  the  state  appropriation  for  schools  in- 
creased 5%,  the  number  of  pupils  in  the  schools  increased  9.8%,  the  num- 
ber of  teachers  employed  increased  22%,  and  the  amount  paid  for  teachers' 
salaries  increased  38.1%.  Data  for  valuation  is  not  at  hand.  Calculated 
from  data  given  in  a  comparative  table  in  the  Kept.  Supt.  Pub.  Instr.,  Pa., 
1903,  pp.  30-31. 


76  School  Funds  and  their  Apportionment 

tenths  of  a  mill  in  Wisconsin,38  to  a  required  three  mills  in  New 
Mexico.39  A  required  state  school  tax  of  one  mill  to  one  and 
one-half  mills  is  a  common  rate.  New  Jersey  nominally  levies 
an  annual  state  school  tax  equal  to  two  and  three-quarter  mills,40 
but  as  ninety  per  cent,  of  the  amount  collected  is  returned  to  the 
counties  "  in  proportion  to  the  amount  of  taxables  *  *  in  said 
counties,"  the  tax  is  to  a  very  large  extent  only  a  compulsory 
county  school  tax. 

A  few  states  appropriate  a  definite  portion  of  the  state's 
revenues  of  each  year  as  an  annual  state  school  tax.  The  Mis- 
souri constitution  requires  that  "  not  less  than  twenty-five  per 
cent,  of  the  State  revenue  *  be  applied  annually  to  the  sup- 
port of  schools,"  41  and  since  1887  one-third  of  the  ordinary  State 
revenue  has  been  appropriated  to  the  public  schools.42  The 
Louisiana  constitution  requires  that  "  not  less  than  one  and  one- 

38  "There  is  appropriated  annually  to  the  common  school  fund  income 
an  amount  equal  to  seven-tenths  of  one  mill  for  each  dollar  of  the  assessed 
valuation  of  the  taxable  property  in  the  State,  ...  to  be  divided  annually 
as  follows :    $200,000  from  the  license  fees,  or  taxes  paid  by  said  corpora- 
tions,  and   the  balance   from  a  tax  which   shall  be  levied  on  all  taxable 
property."     Wis.  Laws  of  1903,  Ch.  313,  amending  Sec.  10720,  Statutes  of 
1898,  where  the  rate  was  one  mill.     This  reduction  was  made  because  of 
the   increase  in  property  valuation   resulting   from  the  work  of  the  Wis- 
consin State  Tax  Commission. 

39  The   Territorial    Auditor   is   required   to   levy  annually   a  tax  of  not 
over  three  mills,  to  be  paid  into  the  Territorial  Treasury.     N.  Mex.,  Com- 
piled Laws  of  1897,  Title  XI,  Sec.  1537. 

40  "  A  state  school  tax  shall  be  annually  assessed,  levied,  and  collected 
upon  the  taxable   real   and  personal  property   in  the   State.  .  .  .  Said  tax 
shall  be  such  an  amount  as  will  make,  when  added  to  the  amount  appro- 
priated as  aforesaid  (100,000),  a  sum  equal  to  two  and  three-quarter  mills 
on  each  dollar.  .  .  .  The  State  Comptroller  shall  apportion  said  tax  and 
appropriation  among  the  several  counties  in  proportion  to  the  amount  of 
taxable   real   and   personal   estate  of  said   counties."  ...      N.  J.   Laws  of 
1903,  2d  Sp.  Sess.,  Ch.  I,  Art.  XVII,  Sec.  177. 

"  Ten  per  cent  of  the  full  amount  of  .the  State  school  tax  annually  raised 
shall  fee  known  as  a  reserve  fund,  and  shall  ...  be  apportioned  among 
the  several  counties  by  the  State  Board  of  Education,  equitable  and  justly 
according  to  its  discretion."  Ibid.,  Sec.  179. 

41  Constitution  of  Missouri,  Art.  XI,  Sec.  7. 

42  55th  An.  Kept.  Supt.  Pub.  Instr.,  Mo.,  1904,  pp.  32-33.     For  1903-04 
this  amounted  to   (p.  65)   $1,098,378.82,  or  $1.11   per  census  child  in  the 
state,  as  against  lie.  income  from  the  permanent  funds.     See  Table  No. 
18,  Oh.  V,  for  the  relative  income  for  the  past  nine  years. 


General  Taxation  for  Education  77 

quarter  mills  of  the  six  mills  of  tax  levied  and  collected  by  the 
state  "  43  shall  be  added  to  the  annual  state  school  funds.  South 
Carolina  appropriates  for  education  the  state's  net  income  from 
the  licensing  and  sale  of  liquors  under  the  dispensary  system.4* 
Michigan,  since  1881,  has  annually  added  the  excess  from  all 
specific  taxes  on  railroad,  express,  insurance,  and  telephone  com- 
panies, etc.45  These  taxes  have  not  only  paid  the  annual  inter- 
est on  the  primary  school  funds,  but  in  1902-03,  $1,575,970.41  of 
the  amount  of  school  fund  apportioned  to  the  counties  by  the 
State  Superintendent  came  from  this  source.  Virtually  the  whole 
apportionment  of  $1,973,784.94  came  from  the  surplus  of  specific 
taxes.  The  income  from  the  primary  school  funds  alone  has 
averaged  about  forty-five  cents  per  census  child  since  1842,  but 
the  addition  of  the  surplus  of  specific  taxes  has  made  the  state 
per-capita  apportionment  increase  very  rapidly  in  recent  years.4* 
Another  plan  in  use  in  California 47  and  Washington 48  is 

43  Constitution  of  Louisiana,  Art.  254,  Sec.  I. 

44  "  All  net   income   derived   by  the    State   from   the  sale  of   liquors   in 
this    State,    under   the    dispensary    law,    shall    be   apportioned    among    the 
various  counties  of  this  State,  for  the  benefit  of  the  common  schools,  in 
proportion  to  the  deficiencies  existing  in  the  various  counties  of  this  State, 
after  the  application  of  the  three  mill   (county)   tax  and  the  poll  tax,  to 
run  the  public  schools  for  the  time  fixed  in  Sec.  1233  "    (three  months), 
and  any  surplus,  after  deducting  $5,000  for  institutes,  "  shall  ...  be  appor- 
tioned among  the  counties  in  proportion  to  the  enrollment  in  the  public 
schools."    South  Carolina  Code  of  1902,  Sec.  1235. 

45  For  a  full  statement  as  to  the  income  from  these  taxes  see  Rept.  Supt. 
Pub.  Instr.  for  Mich.,  1903,  pp.  24-31. 

46  This  may  be  seen  from  the   following  census  apportionments.     The 
addition  of  the  surplus  of  specific  taxes  began  in  1881. 


1880  

$  .40 

1886.  . 

.  $i  36 

l802 

$1  4^ 

1898 

$1  4O 

1881...  . 

I  06 

1887 

i  16 

l8o-3 

161 

l8oO 

I  SO 

1882  

1.24 

1888.  .. 

.  i  1$ 

1804 

I  53 

IQOO 

I  ^O 

1883.. 

I  4  "3 

1889 

I  ^0 

iSoc; 

I  20 

IOX)I 

2  OS 

1884  

I.3O 

1800.  . 

.  I  ?0 

1896.  . 

I  2^ 

IOO2 

2  52 

1885.. 

1.24 

1801  .  . 

.  1.42 

1807.  . 

.  I.« 

IQOT.  . 

.  2.70 

From  a  table  in  Rept.  Supt.  Pub.  Instr.  for  Mich.,  1903,  p.  30. 

47  "The    State    Controller    must,  .  .  .  each    year,    estimate   the   amount 
necessary  to  raise  the  sum  of  seven  dollars  for  each  census  child,  between 
the  ages  of  5  and  17  years,  in  the  State,  which  shall  be  the  amount  neces- 
sary to  be  raised  iby  an  ad  valorem  tax  for  school  purposes  during  the  year." 
Polit.  Code  of  CaL,  Sec.  443. 

48  The   State   Board  of   Equalization   shall   annually   "  levy   a  tax  that 


78  School  Funds  and  their  Apportionment 

that  of  levying  whatever  rate  of  taxation  is  necessary  to  produce 
a  certain  amount  each  year  per  census  child.  This  plan  was  in 
use  in  New  Jersey  until  recently,  the  amount  raised  being  $5.00 
per  census  child,  but  was  abandoned  in  favor  of  a  mill  rate  be- 
cause of  constant  irregularities  in  the  school  census. 

The  advantages  of  a  general  state  school  tax  over  a  county 
tax  are  the  same  as  the  advantages  of  a  county  school  tax  over 
a  town  or  township  tax,  and  as  these  in  turn  over  exclusive 
district  taxation.  By  the  partial  pooling  of  effort  on  the  part 
of  the  people  of  an  entire  state,  a  longer  school  term,  better 
teachers,  and  a  generally  higher  standard  of  education  can  be 
had  throughout  the  entire  state  than  would  be  the  case  if  each 
county  were  left  entirely  to  itself.  As  this  has  been  shown  on 
a  preceding  page  to  be  true  for  a  county  tax,  the  application  be- 
ing made  in  Table  No.  7  and  No.  8,  to  the  towns  of  two  Con- 
necticut counties,  so,  in  the  same  way,  it  may  be  shown  to  be  true 
for  a  state  tax  when  applied  to  all  the  towns  and  counties  of 
the  same  state.  By  reference  to  Table  No.  6,  giving  data  for  each 
county  of  the  State  of  Connecticut,  it  will  be  seen  that  a  general 
state  tax  of  1.75  mills  would  alone  produce  $250  for  every 
teacher  in  the  State,  assuming  no  delinquents,  while  the  different 
counties  vary  from  1.42  mills  to  2.97  mills  to  produce  the  same 
amount.  By  such  a  process,  three  counties,  which  have  a  higher 
valuation  than  the  average,  would  help  five  counties,  which  have 
a  lower  valuation  than  the  average,  to  maintain  their  schools. 
A  state  mill  tax,  levied  on  all  the  towns  in  proportion  to  valua- 
tion and  distributed  to  all  the  towns  with  some  reference  to  the 
effort  made  by  the  towns  and  the  number  of  schools  (teachers) 
which  it  is  necessary  for  each  to  maintain,  would  be  a  great 
boon  to  many  poor  towns  and  no  hardship  on  the  wealthier  ones. 
The  fulfillment  of  certain  obligations  on  the  part  of  the  towns 
in  return  for  such  aid  could  and  should  be  demanded  by  the  state. 

shall  be  sufficient  to  produce  a  sum  which,  when  added  to  the  estimated 
amount  of  money  to  be  derived  from  the  interest  on  the  State  permanent 
school  fund  for  the  current  fiscal  year,  shall  equal  ten  dollars  for  each  child 
of  school  age  residing  in  the  State  as  shown  by  the  last  report  of  the 
several  County  Superintendents  to  the  Superintendent  of  Public  Instruc- 
tion: Provided  that  said. tax  shall  not  exceed  five  mills  on  the  dollar." 
Wash.  Code  of  Pub.  Instr.  of  1897,  Title  III,  Ch.  6,  Sees,  in,  as  amended 
by  Ses.  Laws  of  1901,  Sec.  16,  p.  380. 


General  Taxation  for  Education  79 

The  advantages  of  a  state  school  tax  over  a  county  school  tax 
may  be  shown  further  by  a  study  of  Table  10,  Ch.  IV,  comparing 
the  first  eight  counties,  in  alphabetical  order,  of  the  State  of 
Wisconsin  with  the  County  of  Milwaukee  and  the  average  of  the 
State;  and  by  Tables  No.  n,  12,  13,  and  14,  giving  similar  data 
for  Missouri,  Kansas,  California,  and  Indiana  respectively. 

Even  better  than  these  tables  is  a  study  of  the  different  counties 
of  the  State  of  Washington,  a  state  with  an  average  density  of 
population  (1900)  of  7.7  persons  to  the  square  mile. 

It  will  be  remembered  that  the  law  which  we  have  quoted  (foot- 
note 48)  requires  an  annual  state  school  tax  to  be  levied  which 
will  produce,  with  the  income  from  the  state  permanent  school 
fund,  "  a  sum  which  *  shall  equal  ten  dollars  for  each  -child 
of  school  age  residing  in  the  State."  Disregarding  the  income 
from  the  state  permanent  school  fund,  and  assuming  that  this 
tax  is  to  be  a  county  school  tax  instead  of  a  state  school  tax, 
we  find,  by  calculating,  that  the  rate  in  mills  which  would  be 
required  to  be  levied  in  each  county  to  produce  ten  dollars  per 
census  child,  assuming  no  delinquents  and  no  expense  for  col- 
lection, would  be  as  shown  in  the  following  table: 


8o 


School  Funds  and  their  Apportionment 


TABLE  No.  20. 

STATE  AND   COUNTY  TAX    COMPARED   FOR  THE   COUNTIES   OF   WASHINGTON. 


(Calculated  from  data  given  in  the  I7th  Bien. 
Wash.,  1904,  pp.  32-33,  42 


County. 


Assessed  valu- 
ation of  all 
property 
1904. 


The  State $279,493,164 

*  Includes  the  city  of  Seattle, 
t  Includes  the  city  of  Tacoma. 
$  Includes  the  city  of  Spokane. 


No.  census 

children 

5-21  years, 

June,  1904. 


Adams $4,468,678  3,095 

Asotin 1,463,143  1,780 

Chehalis 7,679,203  5,125 

Chelan 2,249,060  2,377 

Clallam 1,939,172  1,488 

Clarke 5,138,766  5,234 

Columbia 3,630,574  2,223 

Cowlitz 3,705,910  2,778 

Douglas >  .  5,473,936  3,256 

Ferry. 2,037,226  699 

Franklin 1,189,821  687 

Garfield 1,978,970  1,419 

Island 884,612  726 

Jefferson 1,965,595      %         i,349 

King  * 72,468,878  36,195 

Kitsap 2,005,116  3,068 

Kittitas 4,4i8,442  3,557 

Klickitat 2,924,578  2,583 

Lewis 4,978,521  6,489 

Lincoln 10,573,264  5,562 

Mason 1,335,285  1,084 

Okanogan 865,598  1,838 

Pacific 2,383,733  i,956 

Pierce  t 32,952,454  20,637 

San  Juan 905,461  966 

Skagit 6,159,201  5,620 

Skamania 528,696  403 

Snohomish 10,890,794  10,812 

Spokane  $ 30,121,491  20,410 

Stevens 3,567,374  4,8o8 

Thurston 4,988,261  3,858 

Wahkiakum 443,98o  793 

Walla  Walla 10,836,425  5,684 

Whatcom 10,687,679  9,918 

Whitman 13,398,510  10,675 

Yakima 8,254,757  7,195 


196,347 


Kept.  Supt. 
•43-) 

Average  valu- 

ation per 

census  child, 

1904. 

$1,444 
822 

1,498 
946 

1,303 
963 

1,633 

i,334 
1,681 

2,915 
i,732 
i,394 
1,218 

1,457 
2,002 

653 
1,242 

1,132 

767 
1,901 
1,232 

471 
1,217 

i,597 

937 
1,094 
1,312 
1,009 
i,476 

742 

i,293 

56o 

1,906 

1,075 

i,255 


$1,423 


Pub.  Instr.  of 

Rate  of  tax 
required  to 

produce 
$10.00  each. 

6.9  mills. 

12.2 

6.6  " 

10.5  " 
7.7 

10.4 

6.0  " 

7-5  " 
5-9 

3-4  " 

5-8  " 

7-1  " 

8.2  " 

6.8  " 

5-0  " 

15-4  " 

8.0  " 
8.8  " 

13.0  " 

5-2  " 

8.1  " 

21.2  " 

8.2  " 
6.2  " 

10.7  " 

9-2  " 

7-6  " 

9-9  " 

6.8  " 

13-5  " 

7-7  " 

17.8  " 
5-2  " 
9-2  " 
8.0  " 

8.7  " 

7.0  " 


General  Taxation  for  Education  81 

It  will  be  noticed  that  the  average  state  rate  of  tax  required 
to  produce  ten  dollars  per  census  child  is  seven  mills,  while  the4 
law  provides  that  "  said  tax  shall  not  exceed  five  mills."  48  As 
not  over  five  mills  can  be  levied  this  would  have  produced,  on 
the  average  valuation  of  1904,  and  again  neglecting  the  income 
from  the  state  permanent  school  fund,  only  seven  dollars  and 
twelve  cents  per  census  child.  While  this  would  change  the 
various  required  county  rates  by  reducing  each  of  them  two- 
sevenths,  it  would  not  change  them  relatively ;  the  rate  in  Oka- 
nogan  County,  for  example,  being  6.26  times  the  rate  in  Ferry 
County  and  3.07  times  the  average  for  the  State,  whatever  the 
amount  required  to  be  raised. 

The  equalizing  result  of  a  state  tax  is  evident  from  the  last 
column  of  figures.  Twelve  counties  help  to  equalize  the  burden 
of  support  in  twenty-four  other  counties.  It  is  merely  the  pool- 
ing effort  on  a  large  scale  to  secure  a  uniformly  high  standard  of 
education  throughout  the  state.  Instead  of  a  township,  or  a 
county,  the  people  of  the  whole  state  unite  for  a  common  result. 
All  are  then  taxed  by  the  state  at  a  uniform  rate  (so  many  mills) 
and  all  share  in  the  income  from  such  taxation  at  a  uniform  rate 
(number  of  children  in  daily  attendance  at  school). 

This  is  the  logical  conclusion  of  the  theory  that  "  the  wealth 
of  the  State  should  help  to  educate  the  children  of  the  State," 
all  being  taxed  equally  in  proportion  to  their  wealth  and  shar- 
ing equally  in  proportion  to  the  actual  number  of  children  who 
receive  instruction.  The  actual  or  relative  amount  of  aid 
which  the  state  shall  give  by  such  taxation  is  an  entirely  different 
question;  the  first  involves  an  educational  principle,  the  other  is 
a  matter  of  educational  fiscal  policy.  All  inequalities  are  not 
obliterated,  of  course,  for  a  local  town  or  district  tax  must  still  be 
raised  on  the  varying  valuations,  but  the  state  school  tax  is  uni- 
form on  all  and  is  a  tendency  toward  the  equalization  of  both 
burdens  and  advantages.  The  increase  in  tax  rate  on  the 
wealthier  communities  is  small  compared  with  the  decrease  of 
tax  rate  on  the  poorer  communities.  The  result  is  that  a  much 
more  general  uniformity  in  the  educational  standard  can  be  en- 
forced throughout  the  state  as  a  whole  than  would  be  possible 
under  the  county  or  township  system. 

The  equalizing  effect  of  a  state  and  a  county  school  tax  com- 
bined is  best  illustrated  by  the  State  of  California.  The  develop- 


82  School  Funds  and  their  Apportionment 

ment  of  each  of  these  taxes  was  given  on  a  preceding  page.  The 
state  school  tax  of  $7.00  per  census  child  was  equal  to  a  general 
state  tax  of  1.78  mills.  This  was  paid  by  all.  The  county  school 
tax  of  not  less  than  $6.00  per  census  child  (this  is  to  be  $7.00 
also,  beginning  1905)  required  the  following  tax  rates  during 
the  year  1904  in  the  fifty-seven  different  counties  of  the  state.49 

Rate  of  tax,  1904.  Counties. 

Under  i  mill I 

i  mill  or  over  but  less  than  1.5  mills 3 

1.5  mills  or  over  but  less  than  2.0  mills 8 

2.0  mills  or  over  but  less  than  2.5  mills 18 

2.5  mills  or  over  but  less  than  3.0  mills 12 

3.0  mills  or  over  but  less  than  3.5  mills 10 

3.5  mills  or  over  but  less  than  4.0  mills 2 

4.0  mills  or  over  but  less  than  4.5  mills o 

4.5  mills  or  over  but  less  than  5.0  mills 2 

5.0  mills i 

Average  rate  of  all  counties,  2.48  mills. 

The  highest  rate  of  tax  paid  in  any  county  (Mono)  was  5.0  -f- 
1.78  =  6.78  mills,  while  the  lowest  rate  paid  in  any  county  (San 
Francisco;  county  tax  only)  was  .64  -f-  1.78  =  2.42  mills.  In  but 
five  of  the  fifty-seven  counties  did  the  total  state  and  county 
school  tax  exceed  5.25  mills,  with  an  average  of  about  4.25  mills. 
The  great  equalizing  effect  of  this  form  of  tax  is  better  under- 
stood when  it  is  stated  that  this  amount  practically  maintained 
all  the  elementary  schools,  the  only  additional  taxation  required 
being  for  new  buildings  or  repairs,  for  additional  facilities  for 
town  or  city  schools,  and  for  high  schools.  Under  the  appor- 
tionment plan  in  use 50  every  one-teacher  school  in  the  state 
with  less  than  twenty  census  children  received  an  initial  teacher 
grant  of  $400,  and  if  with  over  twenty  and  less  than  seventy 
census  children  an  initial  teacher  grant  of  $500,  and  then  an 
additional  attendance  grant  of  about  $10  for  each  pupil  in 
average  daily  attendance  at  the  school  the  preceding  year.  Be- 
ginning with  July,  1905,  these  distinctions  between  schools  are 
to  be  abolished,  and  a  uniform  teacher  grant  of  $550  for  every 
seventy  census  children  or  fraction  thereof  is  to  be  made  to  all 
schools  in  the  state,  regardless  of  size. 

49  2ist  Bien.  Rept.  Supt.  Pub.  Instr.,  Cal.,  1903-04,  p.  181. 

50  See  Chapter  XII,  foot-notes  22,  23,  and  24. 


General  Taxation  for  Education  83 

This  wise  taxation  and  apportionment  plan  secures  to  every 
school,  whether  in  the  valleys,  in  the  mountains,  on  the  edge  of 
the  desert,  or  in  a  wealthy  suburban  community,  a  common 
minimum  sum.  The  amount  received  per  school  varies  from 
$500  to  $1200,  a  common  sum  being  from  $750  to  $850.  This 
has  ensured  not  only  a  good  teacher  in  each  school  but  a  quality 
of  teacher  in  the  profession  which  could  not  have  been  secured 
on  the  stems  paid  in  most  other  states.  The  main  reason  why 
the  schools  of  California  have  made  such  rapid  progress  and 
stand  so  high  is  that  there  has  been  a  pooling  of  effort  on  a  large 
scale  by  the  people  of  the  state,  and  this  has  resulted  in  an 
equalization  of  advantages  as  well  as  of  burdens. 

Whether  or  not  this  general  taxation  for  the  support  of  educa- 
tion has  gone  too  far  in  some  states  is  not  a  question  which  the 
writer  attempts  to  discuss  here.  Our  concern  is  with  the  prin- 
ciple rather  than  with  the  percentage.  Different  states  have 
different  plans  and  different  theories  as  to  the  method  of  school 
support.  With  these  the  writer  is  concerned  only  to  the  extent 
that  these  plans  serve,  or  can  be  made  to  serve,  to  equalize  edu- 
cational advantages  by  relieving  excessive  burdens  for  support, 
and  by  stimulating  communities  to  do  more  than  they  would  do 
unaided.  To  this  end  the  writer  holds  that  some  form  of  state 
aid  is  very  desirable,  and  that  some  form  of  state  or  county 
aid  is  a  practical  necessity.  Of  these  two  forms  of  general  aid 
for  education,  state  or  county,  the  state  form  is  the  more  desir- 
able because  it  more  easily  and  evenly  equalizes  the  burden  of 
maintaining  what  is  for  the  general  good  of  all,  and  because 
it  makes  it  possible  for  the  state  to  demand  higher  educational 
standards  on  the  part  of  all  communities  than  can  be  done  under 
any  other  form  of  support.  This  can  be  done  better,  too,  if  the 
amount  of  general  aid  is  relatively  large. 

That  the  state  should  distribute  whatever  aid  it  gives  in  such  a 
manner  as  will  not  destroy  the  local  taxing  instinct  may  be  con- 
sidered as  a  wise  and  generally  accepted  educational  principle, 
but  the  state  ought  not  to  allow  the  "  fear  of  weakening  local 
effort  and  local  interest  in  the  schools  "  to  serve  as  an  excuse  for 
doing  little  or  nothing  to  help  poor  and  over-burdened  com- 
munities to  maintain  their  schools  and  to  meet  the  demands  set 
by  the  state.  What  the  state  is  primarily  interested  in,  educa- 
tionally, is  the  securing  of  the  advantages  of  as  good  an  educa- 


84  School  Funds  and  their  Apportionment 

tion  as  is  practicable  to  each  child  of  the  state,  and  in  doing  this 
the  important  consideration  is  the  interests  of  the  child. 

The  first  great  step  in  the  attempt  to  equalize  educational  ad- 
vantages has  been  the  recognition  on  the  part  of  the  people  of  the 
state's  interest  in  and  responsibility  for  the  education  of  its 
children.  This  recognition  has"  been  marked  by  the  establish- 
ment of  some  form  of  general  taxation  for  the  partial  support 
of  the  system  of  public  education.  The  idea  of  a  general  prop- 
erty tax  for  schools  having  been  bitterly  contested  for  in  most 
states,  and  being  new  to  the  generation  which  instituted  it,  it 
was  only  natural  that  the  chief  idea  relating  to  the  distribution 
of  the  income  from  such  taxation  should  be  that  it  should  be 
divided  with  absolute  impartiality  to  all.  The  constitutions  of 
more  than  one-fourth  of  the  states  and  the  laws  of  thirty-three 
of  the  states  and  territories  of  the  Union  accordingly  provide  for 
a  per-capita  or  census  distribution  to  the  counties  51  of  all  state 
school  funds  and  taxes,  and  nineteen  have  further  provided  that, 
after  adding  any  county  funds,  it  shall  be  so  distributed  to  the 
/  townships  and  districts.  On  the  other  hand,  more  than  one-half  of 
the  state  constitutions  are  either  silent  on  the  question  or  leave  the 
matter  to  the  legislatures  to  regulate  by  a  general  law.  Few 
states  have  incorporated  in  their  constitutions  so  wise  a  provision 
on  this  subject  as  have  the  states  of  Connecticut52  and  Nebraska.53 

The  second  great  step  in  the  attempt  to  equalize  educational 
advantages  will  be  taken  when  the  people  come  to  realize  that 
a  division  with  absolute  impartiality  to  all  is  not  necessarily  an 
equitable  division,  and  that  it  does  not  serve  the  purpose  for 
which  these  funds  and  taxes  were  provided  as  well  as  a  dis- 
tribution which  is  proportional  to  the  needs  of  a  community 

51  See  Table  No.  37,  Chapter  IX. 

52  "  The  fund,  called  the  School  Fund,  shall  remain  a  perpetual  fund, 
the  interest  of  which  shall  be  inviolably  appropriated  to  the  support  and 
encouragement  of   the   public  or   common    schools   throughout   the   State, 
.  .  .  and  no  law  shall  ever  be  made  authorizing  said  fund  to  t>e  diverted 
to  any  other -use  than  the  encouragement  a-nd  support  of  public  or  common 
schools,  among  the  several  school  societies,  as  justice  and  equity  shall  re- 
quire."    Constitution  of  Conn.,  Art.  VIII,  Sec.  2. 

53  "  Provision  shall  be  made  by  general  law  for  an  equitable  distribution 
of  the  income  of  the  fund  set  .apart  for  the  support  of  common  schools, 
among  the   several  school  districts  of  the  State."      Constitution  of  Neb., 
Art.  VIII,  Sec.  7- 


General  Taxation  for  Education  85 

and  the  efforts  which  it  makes  to  help  itself.  About  one-third  of 
the  states  have  made  some  advances  along  this  line. 

The  third  great  step  in  the  attempt  to  equalize  educational 
advantages  will  be  taken  when  the  state  recognizes  that  it  is  its 
duty  to  help  new  and  desirable  forms  of  education  to  gain  a  foot- 
hold and  become  established  and  to  assist  necessitous  communi- 
ties by  special  grants,  and,  if  necessary  to  do  so  because  the  fund 
at  hand  is  small,  to  withdraw  all  aid  for  "  common  schools  "  from 
those  larger  and  wealthier  communities  which  are  able  to  care  for 
themselves.  The  state  would  then  devote  a  portion  at  least  of  its 
energies  to  helping  poor  communities  and  to  subsidizing  such 
desirable  new  forms  of  education  as  high  schools ;  technical  edu- 
cation ;  manual  training  in  graded  schools ;  parental  schools ; 
kindergartens ;  vacation  schools ;  skilled  supervision,  both  state 
and  local ;  agricultural  instruction ;  the  enforcement  of  minimum 
salary  laws;  etc.  Disregarding  state  aid  for  high  schools,  but 
ten  states  have  made  any  beginning  in  this  direction,  and  noth- 
ing of  particular  note  has  been  done  in  more  than  five. 

We  have  so  far  dealt  with  only  .the  first  part  of  our  subject, 
viz.,  the  inequalities  in  ability  to  properly  maintain  a  good 
school  which  have  come  to  exist  and  do  exist,  and  the  various 
means  which  the  states  have  created  to  be  used  in  relieving 
existing  burdens.  Permanent  funds  and  the  income  from  gen- 
eral taxation  are  the  means  which  the  states  have  at  hand  for  use 
in  any  attempt  at  the  equalization  of  either  the  burdens  or  the 
advantages  of  education.  These  means  created,  the  problem  now 
before  the  state  is  how  to  distribute  the  income  so  as  best  to 
accomplish  this  purpose.  In  the  chapters  which  follow  we  shall 
deal  with  this  question  at  some  length. 

Just  as  there  has  been  a  certain  general  evolution  in  the  theory 
of  taxation  for  public  schools,  as  the  people  of  a  state  have 
come  to  have  a  broader  conception  of  the  purpose  and  need  of 
a  system  of  public  education,  so,  similarly,  there  has  been  a  cer- 
tain general  evolution  in  the  theory  as  to  the  best  method  of  dis- 
tributing the  income  from  the  permanent  funds  and  from  the 
general  taxation  established.  Just  as  the  different  states  represent 
different  evolutionary  stages  in  the  theory  of  taxation  for  educa- 
tion, so,  similarly,  different  states  represent,  in  a  general  way, 
different  evolutionary  stages  in  the  theory  as  to  the  distribution 
of  the  income  from  funds  and  from  taxation  for  education. 


86  School  Funds  and  their  Apportionment 

Naturally  all  states  have  not  passed  through  and  will  not  in  the 
future  pass  through  the  same  evolutionary  stages  in  either  taxa- 
tion or  distribution,  nor  will  the  ultimate  goal  be  the  same 
for  each.  Economic  conditions,  educational  conditions,  the  poli- 
itcal  units  used  as  a  basis  for  distribution,  and  the  amount  and  re- 
lation of  the  state  funds  to  the  other  funds  differ  in  different 
states,  and  these  require  that  any  equalizing  theory  be  worked 
out  and  adjusted  to  the  actual  conditions  existing. 

Notwithstanding  these  differences  in  conditions  certain  general 
principles  ought  to  hold  true  with  reference  to  the  distribution  of 
funds  for  educational  purposes.  Certain  bases  serve  better  for 
the  distribution  of  funds  than  others,  and  certain  bases  give  a 
more  generally  just  result  than  others  because  they  tend  to  re- 
lieve excessive  burdens  better,  to  equalize  the  advantages  of  edu- 
cation, and  to  place  a  premium  on  more  efforts  which  communi- 
ties ought  to  be  encouraged  to  make  for  themselves. 

The  earlier  forms  of  distribution  were  naturally  those  of 
perfect  equality  to  all,  and  it  is  at  this  stage  that  most  states  are 
now  standing.  The  logical  conclusion  of  this  process  of  equali- 
zation is  a  system  of  distribution  which  will  have  reference  to 
existing  inequalities,  which  will  tend  to  equalize  better  the  ad- 
vantages of  education,  which  will  place  a  premium  on  the  ef- 
forts made  by  localities  to  help  themselves,  and  which  will  serve 
to  stimulate  communities  to  introduce  new  and  desirable  forms 
of  educational  effort. 

We  shall  first  examine  the  various  single  bases  for  distribu- 
tion now  in  use  or  which  may  be  used,  with  a  view  to  setting 
up  certain  educational  standards  which  ought  to  be  applied  in 
formulating  any  plan  for  distributing  aid  or  for  improving  any 
existing  plan.  This  will  naturally  involve  a  discussion  and  for- 
mulation of  the  theory  which  should  control  in  the  distribution  of 
the  income  from  all  forms  of  general  aid  for  education.  In  doing 
this  we  shall  first  examine  the  various  single-basis  types  of  dis- 
tribution, such  as  census,  enrollment,  etc.,  with  a  view  to  asr 
certaining  the  merits  and  defects  of  each,  and  for  the  purpose  of 
formulating  certain  theoretical  standards.  We  shall  then  appiy 
these  standards  in  the  consideration  of  the  combination  types  of 
distribution,  by  which  we  mean  the  use  of  two  or  more  single 
bases  in  combination  to  secure  a  better  result,  and  in  the  con- 
sideration of  the  equalization  type  of  distribution,  by  which  we 


General  Taxation  for  Education  87 

mean  those  definite  and  conscious  attempts  on  the  part  of  the 
state  to  equalize  the  burdens  and  advantages  of  education  to  all 
by  distributing  a  portion  at  least  of  its  funds  with  direct  reference 
to  needs  and  burdens  borne. 

The  various  single  bases  of  distribution  may  be  classified,  for 
convenience,  into  the  following  groups  and  sub-groups,  arranged 
in  an  approximate  order  of  merit. 

1.  Distribution  with  reference  to  taxes  or  wealth.     (Chapter 

VII.)     Apportionment  of  aid  to  the  different  school  units 
on  the  basis  of: 

(a)  The  amount  of  taxes  paid  by  each. 

(b)  The  relative  valuation  of  the  property  of  each. 

2.  Distribution  with  reference  to  population.    (Chapter  VIII.) 

Apportionment  of  aid  to  the  different  school  units  on  the 
basis  of : 

(a)   The  total  population  of  each. 

3.  Distribution  with  reference  to  pupils  and  schools.     Appor- 

tionment  of   aid   to   the   different   school    units    on   the 
basis  of : 

(a)  The    number    of    children    of    school    age.      The 

School  Census  basis.      (Chapter  IX.) 

(b)  The   number   of   children   enrolled  in  the   school. 

(Chapter  X.) 

(c)  The  average  membership  of  the  school.   (Chapter  X.) 

(d)  The    average    daily    attendance    at    the    school. 

(Chapter  XL) 

(e)  The  aggregate  days  of  attendance  at  the  school. 

(Chapter  XL) 

(f)  The    school    district    or    the   teacher    as    a   basis. 

(Chapter  XII.) 

4.  Distribution    with    reference   to   effort   and   need.     (Chap- 

ter XIII.)     Apportionment  of  aid  to  certain  school  units 
with  direct  reference  to  the  needs  and  burdens  borne. 


PART   II 
DISTRIBUTION  OF  THE  RELIEF  AT  HAND 

CHAPTER  VII 

DISTRIBUTION  WITH  REFERENCE  TO  TAXES  AND  WEALTH 
APPORTIONMENT  ON  THE  BASIS  OF  THE  AMOUNT  OF  TAXES  PAID 

BY  establishing  schools  and  making  provision  for  some  form  of 
general  taxation  for  education,  the  state  has  assumed  public  edu- 
cation as  one  of  its  functions  as  a  state.  As  soon  as  an  income 
from  funds  or  general  taxation  for  education  has  been  provided 
for,  it  is  of  course  necessary  that  the  state  establish  some  basis 
for  its  distribution  to  the  schools  of  the  state.  In  the  evolution 
of  a  rational  system  for  the  granting  of  state  aid  for  education, 
a  distribution  based  on  the  amount  of  taxes  paid,  whatever  may 
be  its  usefulness  in  some  particular  locality,  represents  one  of  the 
lowest  and  most  primitive  methods.  In  so  far  as  a  state  uses  this 
basis  of  distribution  it  cannot  be  said  to  have  a  state  system  of 
education  at  all,  but  only  a  compulsory  local  system. 

So  far  as  the  tax,  the  income  from  which  is  distributed  on  this 
basis,  is  supposed  to  be  a  general  tax,  and  not  merely  a  com- 
pulsory local  tax,  this  form  of  distribution  is  one  of  the  worst 
that  could  be  devised.  It  belongs,  in  the  evolution  of  the  theory 
of  distribution,  to  a  period  when  the  idea  of  general  taxation  was 
new  and  not  yet  firmly  established,  and  when  the  people  had  not 
yet  made  "  the  support  and  maintenance  of  an  efficient  system  of 
free  public  schools  throughout  the  State  "  1  a  required  duty  of 
the  Legislature  of  the  state.  A  generation  ago  it  often  happened 
that  communities,  if  they  were  to  be  subjected  to  compulsory 
taxation  for  education,  demanded  that  the  money  they  paid  should 
be  given  back  to  them  to  be  used  to  maintain  their  own  schools. 
It  was  a  natural  feeling  at  a  time  when, the  idea  of  a  state  system 

1  Constitution  of  Texas,  Art.  7,  Sec.  i. 

(88) 


Apportionment  on  Taxes-paid  Basis  89 

of  education  supported  by  general  taxation  was  an  idea  more  in 
the  minds  of  a  few  leaders  than  in  the  minds  of  the  masses 
of  the  people.  The  state  compulsory  township  taxation  law  en- 
acted by  the  Indiana  Legislature  2  in  1836,  directing  that  five 
per  cent,  of  the  state  revenue  collected  in  each  county  be  re- 
tained and  divided  among  the  townships  for  the  use  of  the 
schools  thereof,  in  proportion  to  the  amount  each  had  paid,  and 
the  similar  optional  county  tax  law  3  of  1849,  are  examples  of 
this  early  feeling.  Of  these  two  laws,  the  law  of  1849,  provid- 
ing that  the  income  from  the  ten-cent  state  school  tax  be  re- 
tained in  the  county  where  paid,  to  be  used  for  the  schools  of 
the  county,  was  a  decided  advance  toward  equalization  over  the 
law  of  1836,  which  required  the  income  to  be  further  divided  up 
among  the  various  townships  in  proportion  to  the  amount  each 
had  originally  paid.  The  law  of  1852,  carrying  out  the  provision 
of  the  new  constitution  of  1851,  and  providing  for  a  general  state 
school  tax  of  ten  cents  on  the  one  hundred  dollars,4  the  income 
to  be  distributed  to  the  counties  on  the  basis  of  the  school  census, 
was  a  further  and  a  decided  advance  toward  the  equalization  of 
both  the  burdens  and  the  opportunities  of  education. 

As  a  means  of  general  and  uniform  compulsory  local  taxation 
such  a  plan  of  distribution  may  possess  certain  local  advantages, 
but  aside  from  this  it  is  a  very  undesirable  single  basis  for 
distribution  because  it  in  no  way  tends  to  equalize  either  the 
burdens  or  the  advantages  of  education  and  because  it  has  no 
educational  significance.  The  more  property  a  community  has 
with  which  to  educate  its  children  the  more  it  will  receive  under 
such  a  plan  of  distribution;  similarly  the  less  it  has  the  less  it 
will  receive.  From  the  point  of  view  of  general  taxation  for 
education  such  a  plan,  so  far  as  its  use  extends,  is  directly  op- 
posed to  the  generally  accepted  principle  that  "  the  wealth  of 
the  State  should  help  to  educate  the  children  of  the  State." 

Whatever  the  name  of  the  tax  collected,  it  cannot  be  consid- 
ered in  reality  as  more  than  a  general  and  compulsory  form  of 
taxation  for  the  smallest  unit  to  which  the  tax  is  distributed. 

2  Rawles,  W.  A.,  Centralising  Tendencies  in  the  Administration  of  In- 
diana, p.  62. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  64. 
*Ibid.,  p,  67. 


90  School  Funds  and  their  Apportionment 

The  county  "  local  mill  tax  "  of  Minnesota,5  for  example,  can 
only  be  regarded  as  a  compulsory  district  tax,  and  the  Tennessee 
state  one  and  a  half  mill  tax  6  and  the  state  poll-tax  of  one 
dollar  as  only  compulsory  county  school-taxes.  While  these 
taxes  no  doubt  prove  valuable  as  now  distributed,  in  that  they 
compel  a  local  tax,  it  is  practically  certain  that  better  results 
could  be  obtained  with  the  same  money  if  distributed  on  some 
better  basis  than  to  the  units  paying  the  taxes. 

The  inequalities  arising  from  an  apportionment  of  school  funds 
on  the  basis  of  the  amount  of  taxes  paid  may  be  seen  by  an  in- 
spection of  the  columns  marked  "Average  valuation  per  census 
child"  and  "Average  valuation  per  school  (teacher  employed)" 
in  Tables  10-14,  Ch.  IV,  which  give  the  average  value  of  the 
taxable  wealth  per  child  of  school  age  for  a  number  of  counties  in 
Wisconsin,  Kansas,  Missouri,  California,  and  Indiana.  A  gen- 
eral state  one-mill  tax  distributed  to  these  counties  on  the  basis 
of  the  amount  of  tax  paid  would  produce  very  unequal  and 
very  unjust  results. 

This  may  be  illustrated  quite  well  by  taking  the  case  of  the 
State  of  Florida,  Where  a  state  one-mill  tax  for  schools  is  re- 
quired by  the  state  constitution  7  to  be  levied  on  all  the  taxable 
property  of  the  state,  but  instead  of  being  distribute^  on  taxes 
paid,  as  is  done  in  Tennessee,  it  is  distributed  on  the  basis  of  the 
average  daily  attendance  in  the  school.8  Levied  on  all  on  the 
basis  of  wealth,  the  distribution  is  made  on  the  basis  of  the 
number  of  children  who  actually  receive  instruction  in  the  public 
school  each  day.  The  biennial  reports  of  the  State  Superin- 
tendent of  Public  Instruction  for  Florida  contain  a  statistical 
table  for  each  school  year  showing  the  amount  of  this  state 
one-mill  tax  assessed  to  each  county,  the  amount  actually  col- 
lected, the  per  cent,  collected,  and  the  amount  returned  to 
each  county  (on  average  daily  attendance)  for  every  dollar  ac- 
tually paid  by  it.  Taking  the  statistics  for  the  school  year 
1901-02  we  find  that  of  the  forty-five  counties  of  the  state, 
twenty-seven  received  back  less  than  they  paid,  and  eighteen  re- 
ceived more,  the  amounts  varying  as  follows : 

5  Minn.  Rev.  Stat.,  1894,  Sec.  3768,  as  amended  in  1897,  c.  75. 

6  Tenn.  Code  of  1884,  Title  7,  Ch.  2,  Art.  II,  Sec.  1665. 

7  Fla.  Constitution  of  1885,  Art.  XII,  Sec.  6. 

8  Fla.  Constitution  of  1885,  Art.  XII,  Sec.  7,  as  amended  in  1894. 


Apportionment  on  Taxes-paid  Basis  91 

TABLE  No.  21. 

FLORIDA   COUNTIES  :     AMOUNT  OF   STATE   SCHOOL   TAX    RETURNED   ON    THE   BASIS 
OF   AVERAGE   DAILY   ATTENDANCE,    FOR   EACH    DOLLAR   ACTUALLY    PAID, 

1901-02. 

(Taken  for  the  school  year,   1901-02,  for  each  of  the  forty-five  counties. 
From  the  Kept.  Supt.  Pub.  Instr.,  Fla.,  for  1902,  Table  XVI,  p.  112.) 


Gadsden $3.11 


Madison 

Washington 

Jefferson 

Holmes , 

Jackson 

Walton 

Alachua 

Leon 

Lafayette 

Suwannee , 

Columbia 

Marion , 

Wakulla 

Bradford  .  . 


2.13 

1.90 

.86 

.84 

•78 
.70 
•Si 
•51 
•35 
•34 
.24 
•24 
.24 

•13 


Baker $1.08 

Santa  Rosa 1.06 

Hamilton 1.04 

Levy 94 

Clay 87 

Calhoun 79 

Monroe .79 

Sumter 77 

Manatee 76 

Duval 74 

Pasco 70 

Putnam 69 

Taylor 69 

De  Seta 68 

Escambia 67 


Franklin $  .67 

Polk 67 

Hernando 66 

Nassau 66 

Volusia 66 

Hillsboro 62 

Lake 58 

Orange 57 

Osceola 54 

Liberty 53 

Citrus 48 

St.  Johns 46 

Brevard 38 

Lee 35 

Dade 31 


Gadsden  and  Madison  are  two  relatively  small  counties  in  the 
northwestern  part  of  the  state,  densely  populated,  but  with  no 
city  of  any  importance ;  Dade  and  Brevard  are  two  large  counties 
along  the  east  coast  of  southern  Florida,  have  but  few  school 
children,  but  contain  a  large  proportion  of  the  famous  winter 
resorts  of  the  state.  Lee  county  is  similarly  situated,  just  west 
of  Dade  county,  but  on  the  Gulf  coast.  The  assessed  wealth  of 
Dade  county  was  two  and  a  half  times  that  of  Gadsden,  while  the 
total  school  enrollment  of  Gadsden  county  was  three  times  that 
of  Dade.  It  can  easily  be  seen  that  the  present  basis  of  dis- 
tribution employed  in  Florida  is  far  more  just  and  is  a  much 
greater  force  in  the  direction  of  the  equalization  of  the  burdens 
and  the  advantages  of  education  than  would  be  the  case  if  the 
distribution  were  made  on  the  basis  of  taxes  paid. 

A  similar  table  could  be  constructed  for  New  York  state  for 
the  year  1901,  the  last  year  in  which  a  definite  state  school  tax 
was  levied.  The  Report  of  the  State  Superintendent  of  Public 
Instruction  9  for  the  year  1902  gives  the  amount  of  tax  paid  by 


9  Kept.  Supt.  Pub.  Instr.,  New  York,  1902,  Vol.  I,  Exhibit  I,  statistical 
table  No.  2,  p.  4. 


92  School  Funds  and  their  Apportionment 

each  county  and  the  amount  received  in  return,  the  distribution 
being  made  chiefly  on  the  bases  of  the  number  of  teachers  em- 
ployed and  the  total  population.  For  the  first  ten  counties  of 
the  state,  as  arranged  alphabetically,  and  for  the  city  of  Greater 
New  York,  the  amount  received  in  return  for  every  dollar 
paid  was : 

TABLE  NO.  22. 

CERTAIN     NEW     YORK    COUNTIES  I    AMOUNT    OF     STATE     SCHOOL    TAX    RETURNED 
FOR  EACH   DOLLAR  PAID,  BASED  ON  THE  TAX  LEVY  AND  APPORTION- 
MENT   FOR    IpOI. 

Albany $1.01  Chemung $1.68 

Allegany 3.30  Chenango 3.01 

Broome 2.03  Clinton 4.36 

Cattaraugus 3.15  Columbia 1.53 

Cayuga 1.81  Greater  New  York 46 

Chautauqua 2.81 

In  Tennessee  a  similar  condition  is  found.  Taking  the  statis- 
tics for  the  different  counties  of  the  state  10  and  comparing  the 
state  apportionment  of  the  income  from  the  state  school  fund  and 
the  surplus  remaining  in  the  State  Treasury  at  the  end  of  the 
year,  which  is  made  on  the  basis  of  the  school  census,  with  the 
income  from  the  state  taxes,  which  is  retained  in  the  county 
where  paid,  we  get  ratios  for  the  two  of  from  i  to  I,  to  I  to  9, 
the  average  for  the  state  being  i  to  4^2. 

APPORTIONMENT  ON   THE  BASIS   OF   PROPERTY. 

From  an  educational  point  of  view  this  is  a  slightly  better 
basis  for  distribution  than  taxes-where-paid.  It  is  better  in 
that  it  insures  a  certain  amount  of  money  for  the  education  of 
the  children  without  regard  to  whether  their  parents  have  been 
able  to  pay  their  taxes  or  not.  One  year  ninety-five  per  cent, 
of  the  taxes  of  a  district  may  be  paid  and  during  another  year 
only  eighty-eight  per  cent.,  but,  if  the  valuation  and  rate  of  tax 
remain  unchanged,  the  same,  instead  of  a  variable  amount,  will 
go  to  the  school  district  each  year. 

From  an  educational  point  of  view,  however,  valuation  is 
as  undesirable  a  single  basis  for  the  apportionment  of  funds  as  is 
taxes-where-paid.  Neither  basis  contains  any  educational  ele- 

10  Tennessee  School  Report,  1904,  Table  XIII. 


Apportionment  on  Property  Basis  93 

ment  or  offers  any  educational  incentive.  As  a  single  basis  for 
the  distribution  of  funds  valuation  is  not  used  at  present  by  any 
state.  Pennsylvania  J  *  distributes  one-third  of  the  state  appro- 
priation for  common  schools  on  the  basis  of  valuation,  and  New 
Jersey  12  distributes  ninety  per  cent,  of  the  two  and  three-quarter 
mill  state  tax  to  the  counties  on  this  basis,13  but  in  both  states 
a  combination  type  of  distribution  exists  which  tends  to  counter- 
act the  bad  effects  arising  from  such  a  method. 

If  the  per-capita  wealth  of  every  county  or  district  were  the 
same,  then  valuation,  from  a  financial  point  of  view,  would  be  a 
just  basis  of  apportionment  for  the  income  from  any  permanent 
funds  or  compulsory  tax  established  by  the  state.  But  even  in 
this  hypothetical  case,  the  method  used  alone,  though  financially 
just,  would  be  undesirable  from  an  educational  point  of  view  be- 
cause its  basis  is  purely  financial  and  because  it  places  no  premium 
on  educational  effort  of  any  kind.  This  placing  of  a  premium  on 
educational  effort  ought  to  be  made  a  prominent  feature  of  any 
state  plan  for  the  apportionment  oi  school  funds.  The  valuation 
basis,  even  when  used  in  combination  with  one  or  more  other 
bases,  must  be  justified  by  expediency  or  some  peculiar  form  of 
state  fiscal  policy  rather  than  on  educational  grounds.  It  is  the 
children  to  be  educated  rather  than  the  possession  of  wealth 
by  their  parents  which  ought  to  be  the  important  factor  in  any 
system  of  distribution. 

11  Act  of  July  15,  1897,  Pa.  Pub.  Laws,  p.  271,  School  Laws  of  1903, 
Sees.  182-184. 

12  N.  L  School  Law  Act  of  1903,  Art.  XVII,  Sees.  177-179. 

13  Neither  the  New  Jersey  nor  the  Pennsylvania  plans  are  simple  dis- 
tribution on  valuation  plans,  a  distribution  on  valuation  being  but  a  part 
of  a  combination  type  plan  of  distribution.     Whatever  may  be  its  theoret- 
ical defects,  the  New  Jersey  plan  of  using  valuation  as  a  partial  basis  of 
distribution  has  certain  advantages.     It  is  practically  a  compulsory  county 
school  tax,  to  which  the  State  contributes  about  one-third  directly  out  of 
the  State  Treasury,  reserving  but  a  small  portion  for  equalization,  and  is 
accepted  where  a  large  real  state  school  tax  might  not  be  possible.     Bar- 
ring a  small  contribution  made  to  two  counties  that  are  much  poorer  in 
taxable  property  than  in  children,  the  state  school  tax  of  each  county  is 
returned  to  it.     In  the  distribution  within  the  county  the  valuation  basis 
of  apportionment  is  entirely  discarded  and  a  combination  basis  of  appor- 
tionment is  used  which  is  one  of  the  best  in  the  Union.     (See  New  Jersey 
School  Report,  1903,  pp.  xix-xxiv,  for  a  more  detailed  statement.) 


CHAPTER  VIII 
DISTRIBUTION  WITH  REFERENCE  TO  TOTAL  POPULATION 

THE  attempt  to  use  the  number  of  pupils  in  some  way  as  the 
basis  of  a  plan  of  distribution  marked  a  decided  advance  toward 
the  equalization  of  educational  burdens  and  advantages  over 
the  tax-paying  or  the  valuation  basis.  It  was  a  change  in 
basis  from  the  mere  possession  of  wealth  to  the  possession  of 
children  to  be  educated.  Continuing  to  tax  all  in  proportion  to 
their  means  for  the  support  of  public  education,  the  basis  for 
the  sharing  in  the  fruits  of  such  taxation  or  the  income  from 
permanent  endowment  funds  became  the  number  of  children  to 
be  educated.  The  change  was,  in  effect,  a  change  from  a  system 
of  local  taxation  to  one  of  general  co-operative  effort.  The  use 
of  the  total  population  as  a  basis  for  distribution  is  essentially 
a  transition  measure,  from  an  evolutionary  point  of  view.  It  is 
a  decided  advance  over  the  tax-paying  or  the  valuation  basis,  and 
occupies  a  somewhat  middle  ground  between  these  and  the  school- 
census  basis.  At  best,  however,  it  is  only  a  rough  method  of 
approximately  determining  the  number  of  children  for  whom  edu- 
cation must  be  provided,  and,  hence,  for  whom  funds  should  be 
apportioned.  As  a  method  it  is  not  used  by  any  states  except 
New  York  and  Vermont.  In  New  York  it  is  used  only  as  a 
partial  basis  for  the  distribution  of  the  State  apportionment  to 
the  counties,1  and  in  Vermont  it  is  used  only  as  a  basis  for  dis- 
tributing the  small  annual  income  from  the  "  Huntington  Fund." 
In  both  states  the  use  of  other  bases  for  distributing  the  school 
moneys  tends  to  neutralize  the  bad  effects  of  such  a  basis  of  dis- 
tribution,2 and  in  both  states  the  amount  is  relatively  small.  As 

1  Consolidated  School  Law  of  N.  Y.,  Title  II,  Art.  i,  Sec.  6,  div.  3. 

2  "  The   State  Treasurer  shall  annually  apportion  the  interest  .  .  .  and 
income  (from  the  Fund)  ...  to  the  several  towns  and  unorganized  towns 
and  gores  in  the   State,   in  proportion  to  the  number  of   inhabitants   in 
each,  based  upon  the  last  census  taken  under  the  laws  of  Congress."     Ver- 
mont Statutes  of  1894,  Ch.  40,  Sec.  750. 

(94) 


The  Total  Population  Basis 


95 


a  method  of  approximation,  either  to  the  number  of  children  to 
be  taught  or  to  the  number  of  teachers  required,  it  is  of  no  real 
value,  as  the  percentage  of  children  of  school  age  to  the  total 
population  varies  greatly  in  different  counties,  towns,  and  cities, 
while  the  number  of  schools  which  must  be  maintained  varies 
greatly  in  different  localities.  This  may  be  shown  by  a  few 
illustrations. 

For  the  state  of  Massachusetts,3  for  example,  the  number 
of  children  of  school  census  age,  5  to  15  years,  was  16.9%  of 
the  total  population  of  the  state  for  the  year  1900,  and  for  every 
1,000  inhabitants  the  state  employed  4.5  teachers.  In  the  differ- 
ent counties,  however,  the  percentages  of  children  of  school- 
census  age  and  the  number  of  teachers  employed  per  1,000  of 
the  population  were  as  follows  : 


Children     Teachers 


Children  Teachers 

of  employed 

County.  census  per  1,000 

age.  inhabs. 

Barnstable 14-5%          6.1 

Berkshire 18.3%          5.2 

Bristol 18.8%          4.0 

Dukes 12.8%          6.4 

Essex 13-5%          4-2 

Franklin 16.9%          6.8 

Hampden i?>7%          4-i 


Calculating  the  percentage  of  children  of  school  age,  5  to  15  years 
in  the  total  population  and  the  number  of  teachers  employed  per 
1,000  inhabitants  for  the  eight  largest  cities  of  the  state,  as  ar- 
ranged in  the  order  of  size,  we  get  the  following : 3 


County. 
HaniDshir0    . 

of 

census 
age. 

16  7% 

employed 
per  1,000 
inhabs. 

c  7 

Middlesex  

.   16.7% 

4.6 

Nantucket  
Norfolk 

.   11.4% 
169% 

4-3 

C   A 

Plymouth  
Suffolk  
Worcester.  . 

.  16.0% 
.  16.2% 

.    17.4% 

5-0 
3-6 

4.7 

City. 


Children     Teachers 

of          employed 

census      per  1,000 


age.  inhabs. 

Boston 16.0%  3.6 

Worcester i7-i%  4-6 

Fall  River 20.5%  3.4 

Lowell iS-4%  3-2 


8  Calculated   from  data  given  in  the   Abstract  of   School   Returns   for 
1900,  in  the  An.  Kept.  Mass.  Bd.  Educ.,  for  1900-1901. 


Children 

Teachers 

of 

employed 

City. 

census 

per  1,000 

age. 

inhabs. 

Cambridge.  .  .  . 

.  .   16.4% 

4-5 

Lynn.         .    .  . 

jc  4% 

•3  7 

New  Bedford. 

..   18.1% 

•J-/ 

3-5 

Springfield..  .  . 

..   16.5% 

5-1 

96  School  Funds  and  their  Apportionment 

Even  a  hasty  inspection  of  the  two  columns  of  figures  in  the 
above  tables  will  show  what  an  unreliable  method  the  use  of 
total  population  is.  The  number  of  children  per  hundred  of  the 
total  population  varies  from  11.4  to  18.8  in  the  different  counties, 
and  from  15.4  to  20.5  in  the  eight  cities,  while  the  number  of 
teachers  employed  to  teach  the  children,  which  is  the  chief  item 
of  cost,  also  varied  greatly.  In  counties  having  the  same  number 
of  children  per  hundred  of  the  total  population,  as  for  example 
Hampshire  and  Middlesex,  or  Franklin  and  Norfolk,  the  varia- 
tion in  the  number  of  teachers  employed  per  thousand  inhabitants 
was  as  great  as  20%.  The  cities  of  Boston,  Cambridge,  and 
Springfield  show  a  similar  variation. 

Turning  from  the  cities  to  the  smaller  towns  and  calculating 
the  percentage  of  school-census  children  to  the  total  population 
for  the  list  of  thirty-seven  poor  towns  given  in  Table  Nq,  2, 
Ch.  Ill,  we  find  them  to  be  as  follows : 

11%,  2  towns.  16%,  8  towns.  21%,  i  town. 

12%,  3        "  17%,  7       "  22%,  i 

13%,  2       "  18%,  2      "  23%,  i 

14%,  i        "  19%,  3       "  28%,  i 

15%,  5       "  20%,  i 

Variations  in  the  percentages  may  of  course  be  due  in  part  to 
I  the  degree  of  accuracy  or  inaccuracy  in  the  school  census,  or  in 
the  national  census  of  1900.  But  as  the  Massachusetts  census 
is  required  to  be  compiled  annually  by  the  School  Commissioners 
as  educational  information,4  is  fairly  constant  from  year  to  year, 
and  is  not  used  as  a  basis  for  the  apportionment  of  school  funds, 
we  may  assume  that  the  degree  of  inaccuracy  existing  between 
the  school  census  and  the  national  census  is  small,  and  that 
Massachusetts  is  a  good  state  in  which  to  study  the  relative  per- 
centage of  school-census  children  to  the  total  population. 

Turning  from  Massachusetts  to  Indiana,  a  state  where  the 
entire  apportionment  is  made  on  the  school-census  basis,  and 
hence  where  there  would  be  a  special  incentive  to  include  every 
child,  6  to  21,  in  the  enumeration,  we  find  similar  variations 
existing.  Taking  the  first  eight  counties,  in  alphabetical  order, 
we  find  the  percentages  5  to  be,  for  1900,  as  follows : 6 

4  Mass.  Rev.  Laws  of  1901,  Ch.  43,  Sec.  3. 

5  Calculations  based  on  the  National  Census  of  1900,  Report  I2th  U.  S. 
Census,   1900,  Vol.   I,  Population;  on  the   State  school  census  of  April, 


The  Total  Population  Basis 


97 


Children     Teachers 


Children     Teachers 


of 

employed 

of 

employed 

County. 

census 

per  1,000 

County. 

census 

per  1,000 

age. 

inhabs. 

age. 

inhabs. 

Adams    

,   74.^% 

C  Q 

Blackford  

.  .  29.6% 

5.6 

Allen 

Ot'O  /v 

•20  7% 

J'  :? 

46 

Bo  one 

2QQ% 

6.8 

Bartholomew  .  . 

•     o     /  /*' 

.  29.1% 

^•v 

6.5 

Brown  

34-5% 

7.7 

Benton.  . 

1Q.*% 

w«  j 

0.6 

Carroll.. 

.   *!.<;% 

8.2 

For  the  three  Indiana  counties  containing  the  three  largest 
cities  in  the  state  the  percentages  of  children  of  school  age  and 
the  number  of  teachers  per  thousand  inhabitants  employed  in 
the  schools  were: 

Children        Teachers 

County.  of  census    employed  per 

age.          r,ooo  inhabs. 

County  containing  the  largest  city  (Marion) 24.1%  4.2 

County  containing  the  second  largest  city  (Vander- 

burg) 29.0%  4.6 

County  containing  the  third  largest  city  (Allen).. .  30.7%  4.5 

For  the  state  of  New  York,  a  state  in  which  total  population 
is  used  as  a  partial  basis  for  the  apportionment  of  state  funds, 
similar  calculations  from  the  returns  of  the  School  Commissioners 
for  the  first  fifteen  counties,  as  arranged  in  alphabetical  order, 
cities  omitted,  give  the  following  results : 7 


Children  Teachers 

of  employed 

County.  census  per  1,000 

age.  inhabs. 

Albany 20.1%          5.4 

Allegany 21.570  10.5 

Broome 20.4%  10.9 

Cattaraugus 197%          7-9 

Cayuga 19.2%          8.p 

Chatauqua 21.4%          9.5 

Chemung 21.5%  10.0 

Chenango 19.0%          9.9 

1900,  Bien.  Rept.  Supt.  Pub.  Instr.,  Indiana,  1900,  p.  380 ;  and  the  number 
of  teachers  employed  in  the  counties  for  the  school  year  1900-01,  Bien. 
Rept.  Supt.  Pub.  Instr.,  Ind.,  1902,  p.  247. 

6  The  great  difference  between  the  percentages  for  Indiana  and  for 
Massachusetts  is  due  to  the  different  age  limits  for  which  -the  school  census 
in  the  two  states  is  taken.  In  Massachusetts  the  limits  are  5-15  years, 
while  in  Indiana  the  limits  are  6-21  years,  married  persons  not  included. 


Children  Teachers 

of  employed 

County.  census  per  1,000 

age.          inhabs. 

Clinton 27.5%          7.2 

Columbia 18.8%          6.2 

Cortland 19.0%        10.5 

Delaware 20.3%          9.6 

Dutchess 18.2%          5.0 

Erie 25.0%          5.9 

Essex 23.0%          9.7 


98  School  Funds  and  their  Apportionment 

For  the  eight  largest  cities  of  New  York  State,  all  having  over 
40,000  inhabitants  according  to  the  census  of  1900,  and  where 
consequently  a  small  difference  in  the  percentage  would  make  a 
large  difference  in  the  amount  of  money  received,  similar  calcula- 
tions from  the  returns  give  the  following  results : 7 

Children  Teachers  Children  Teachers 

of  employed  of  employed 

City.  census  per  1,000  City.  census  per  1,000 

age.  inhabs.  age.  inhabs. 

New  York  City.  23.5%          3.6  Albany 21.1%          3.3 

Buffalo 22.8%          3.3  Troy 19.8%          3-6 

Rochester 22.0%          4.6  Utica 21.4%          4.3 

Syracuse 22.5%          4.5  Yonkers 20.8%          3-7 

It  will  be  evident  from  these  tables  that  even  as  a  method  of 
approximation  the  population  basis  is  very  inaccurate,  and  that 
it  bears  no  definite  relation  to  either  the  number  of  children  to 
be  educated  or  to  the  number  of  teachers  required.  The  chief 
result  from  its  use  as  an  apportionment  basis,  as  the  Indiana  and 
the  New  York  tables  clearly  show,  is  to  give  from  one  and  a  half 
to  three  times  as  much  money  to  the  cities  as  to  the  counties,8 
measured  by  the  number  of  schools  (teachers  employed)  which 
are  maintained.  The  actual  value  of  the  grant  is  thus  inversely 
proportional  to  the  number  of  teachers  employed,  being  worth 
only  about  half  as  much  in  Allegany,  Broome,  Chemung,  or 
Cortland  counties  as  in  Albany,  Dutchess,  or  Erie,  and  only 
about  a  third  as  much  as  in  the  cities  of  Buffalo,  Albany,  or 
New  York.  The  grant  varies  also  among  the  cities  themselves, 
being  worth  about  one-third  less  in  Rochester  and  Syracuse,  be- 
cause of  the  employment  of  more  teachers  per  thousand  inhabi- 
tants, than  in  New  York  or  Buffalo. 

Besides  inaccuracy  the  total  population  basis  has  the  further 

7  Calculated  from  data  given  in  tables  3  and  4  of  the  Rept.  Supt.  Pub. 
Instr.   of  New  York,   1902,  Vol.  II.     The  calculations  are  based  on  the 
National  Census  of  1900,  the  biennial  state  school  census  of  1901,  and  the 
number  of  teachers  employed  for  the  school  year  1900-1901. 

8  As  a  matter  of  fact  the  42  cities  and  61  counties  of  New  York  received 
practically  the  same  amount  of  money  in  1902  on  the  teachers-employed 
basis,  but  on  the  population  basis  the  cities  received   twice  as  much  as 
the  counties.    An.  Rept.  Supt.  Pub.  Instr.,  New  York,  1902,  I,  tables,  pp. 
6,7. 


The  Total  Population  Basis  99 

disadvantage  that  a  national  census  is  taken  only  once  in  ten  years, 
and  few  states  take  a  state  census,  while  the  school  population  of 
a  county  or  a  city  may  be  experiencing  a  rapid  increase  or  de- 
crease during  the  period.  Between  1890  and  1900,  for  example, 
these  same  eight  New  York  cities  given  above  made  the  fol- 
lowing gains  or  losses  in  population : 9 

New  York  City  gained 6%  Albany  lost i% 

Buffalo  gained 37%  Troy  lost i% 

Rochester  gained 21%  Utica  gained 27% 

Syracuse  gained 23%  Yonkers  gained 47% 

The  use  of  total  population  as  an  apportionment  basis  is  open 
to  still  further  objections  in  that  it  in  no  way  offers  a  premium 
on  any  educational  effort,  and  if  used  alone  would  do  great  in- 
justice to  all  small  schools,  as  will  be  shown  later  on.  The  total 
population  basis  was  used  by  a  number  of  states  forty  to  fifty 
years  ago,  but  it  has  since  been  abandoned  by  all  but  two.  The 
future  is  not  likely  to  see  any  further  extension  of  its  use.  Now 
that  the  state  of  New  York  has  discontinued  general  taxation 
for  education  and  substituted  an  annual  appropriation  from  the 
treasury  in  its  stead,  the  object  of  which  ought  to  be  the  assist- 
ance of  those  communities  most  in  need  of  help,  it  would  seem 
both  desirable  and  just  that  the  state  should  abandon  even  the 
partial  use  of  an  apportionment  basis  which  so  distinctly  favors 
those  communities  best  able  to  care  for  themselves.  The  sub- 
stitution of  the  aggregate  days'  attendance  basis  for  total 
population,  as  used  in  making  the  county  apportionment,  would 
seem  to  be  a  desirable  change. 

9  Calculated  from  U.  S.  Census  data  for  the  years  indicated.  Kept.  12th 
U.  S.  Census,  Vol.  I,  Population. 


CHAPTER  IX 
THE  SCHOOL  CENSUS  BASIS 

THE  use  of  the  school  census  as  a  basis  for  apportioning  school 
funds  is  very  common,  thirty-eight  states  and  territories  using  it 
entirely  or  in  part.  It  forms  a  natural  and  an  easy  basis  for  the 
apportioning  of  funds.  New  Jersey,  Delaware,  Minnesota,  and 
South  Carolina,  alone  of  all  the  forty-eight  states  and  territories, 
not  take  a  school  census.  A  census  of  children  of  school  age, 
taken  in  part  to  secure  educational  information,  has  been  made 
to  serve  as  an  easy  and  convenient  basis  for  the  apportionment 
of  school  funds.  At  first  thought  it  appears  to  be  a  fair  and  a 
just  basis.  In  proportion  as  a  community  has  children  to  be 
educated  funds  ought  to  be  apportioned  to  it  for  the  purpose. 
Taxation  collected  in  proportion  to  wealth  is  distributed  in  pro- 
)  portion  to  the  number  of  children  in  need  of  education.  The 
weakness  of  such  an  assumption  is  evident,  however,  when  one 
considers  that  the  percentage  of  the  school  census  attending 
schools  varies  greatly,  and  that  the  cost  of  education  is  deter- 
mined by  the  number  of  teachers  needed  to  teach  the  children 
actually  in  the  schools  and  not  by  the  number  of  children  who 
ought  to  or  who  might  attend.  Forty,  thirty,  twenty,  or  ten 
children  in  a  district  require  the  same  number  of  teachers,  that 
is,  one.  The  cost  of  the  school  is  almost  wholly  the  cost  of  the 
one  teacher,  and  the  cost  of  the  teacher  should  vary  but  little 
for  a  school  within  these  limits. 

Though  a  big  advance  toward  equalization  over  an  apportion- 
ment based  on  taxes  paid,  valuation,  or  even  total  population, 
the  census-basis  method  is  (i)  theoretically  defective  in  a  num- 
ber of  particulars;  (2)  in  practice  only  slightly  equalizes  in- 
equalities and  advantages,  and  often  leaves  the  inequalities  greater 
than  before;  and  (3)  offers  no  incentive  to  a  community  to  make 
any  effort  for  itself.  We  shall  consider  each  of  these  in  order. 

(100) 


The  School  Census  Basis  101 

(i)  The  general  accompaniment  of  the  census  method  has 
been  an  extension  of  the  age  limits  both  above  and  below  the 
years  for  which  schools  are  provided,1  and  the  requirement  that 
cities  shall  maintain  their  kindergartens  and  high  schools  by 
local  taxation.  The  result  of  both  has  been  thought  to  be  a 
tendency  toward  equalization,  though  it  is  probable  that  this  has 
been  more  than  offset  by  other  tendencies,  as  will  be  indicated 
later  on.  A  small  community,  maintaining  a  school  of  seven 
to  eight  grades  and  for  six  months  a  year,  is  able  to  draw  "  census 
money  "  on  all  its  members  between  five  or  six  on  the  one  hand, 
and  twenty  and  twenty-one  on  the  other,  some  of  the  states  not 
specifically  excluding  married  persons  below  the  maximum  age 
from  enumeration,  and  on  exactly  the  same  basis  as  the  city 
which  provides  kindergartens,  high  schools,  and  evening  schools, 
and  a  ten  months'  term.  While  permitted  by  law  and  certainly 
justified  under  an  exclusive  census  basis  of  apportionment  be- 
cause it  tends  toward  equalization,  this  is  theoretically  unjust 
and  is  a  wrong  method  of  only  partially  accomplishing  an  equali- 
zation that  ought  to  be  provided  for  in  a  better  way.  In  equity 
the  cities  ought  to  be  rewarded  for  their  greater  efforts  both  as 
to  schools  and  to  term. 

Another  theoretical  objection  to  the  census  method  of  appor- 
tioning funds  is  that  it  gives  no  incentive  to  the  establishment  of 
kindergartens  on  the  one  hand  or  high  schools  or  evening  schools 
on  the  other,  or  to  any  other  form  of  extra  educational  effort. 

With  reference  to  kindergartens,  it  would  seem  but  just  that,  in 
the  twenty-two  states  using  six  years  as  the  lower  limit,  the 
cities  and  towns  establishing  and  maintaining  kindergartens  be 
allowed  to  report  a  separate  enumeration  of  all  children  five  to 
six  years  of  age  and  draw  "  census  money "  on  such  extra 

1  The  age  limits  for  which  the  school  census  is  taken  in  the  different 
states  seem  to  have  been  determined  somewhat  arbitrarily,  and  bear  no 
close  relation  to  the  ages  for  which  schools  are  provided.  Tabulating  the 
census  age  limits  for  the  forty-four  states  and  territories  having  a  school 
census  we  find  the  following: 

4-16  years,  i  states.        5-15  years,  2  states.        6-16  years,  I  states. 
4-20      "      2      "  5-16      "      i      "  6-18      "      4      " 

4-21      "      i      "  5-17      "      i      "  6-20      "      3      " 

5-18      "      2      "  6-21      "    14      " 

5-2O         "        2         "  7-21         "         I         " 

5-21      "      8      "  8-17      "      i      " 


IO2  School  Funds  and  their  Apportionment 

enumeration.  This  could  be  done  without  disturbing  the  uni- 
formity of  the  state-school  census.  There  are,  however,  certain 
serious  objections  to  such  a  proposal.  In  the  first  place,  cities 
often  do  not  establish  kindergartens  in  all  parts  of  the  city,  and 
even  when  this  is  done  the  number  of  children  attending  kinder- 
gartens is  usually  much  smaller  than  the  number  attending  the 
first  grade  of  the  regular  school,  while  on  census  it  would  be 
larger.  This  may  be  shown  by  the  statistics  from  a  few  cities 
where  kindergartens  have  been  established  as  a  part  of  the 
city  system.  The  percentages  are  calculated  from  data  given  in 
the  reports  of  the  City  Superintendents  for  the  dates  given,  and 
are  based  on  total  enrollment,  except  for  Newark,  which  is  for 
average  number  belonging,  and  for  St.  Louis,  which  is  for  the 
number  enrolled  in  each  class  at  the  close  of  the  year. 

KINDERGARTEN    AND   FIRST   GRADE   ENROLLMENT    COMPARED. 

Cambridge,  Mass 1900  40%  of  that  of  first  grade. 

Los  Angeles,  Cal 1902  65% 

Newark,  N.  J. 1903  55% 

Springfield,  Mass 1903  59% 

St.  Louis,  Mo 1902  52% 

Unless  only  a  fraction  of  a  "  census  child  "  apportionment  were 
made  for  each  child  five  to  six  years  of  age  the  cities  would 
receive  a  further  undue  proportion  of  funds,  resulting  in  further 
inequalities  in  their  favor.  However  desirable  it  may  be  to  in- 
corporate kindergartens  into  the  public  school  system,  the  census 
basis  offers  no  practicable  means  of  doing  so.  Still  this  is  an 
easy  matter  if  a  proper  apportionment  basis  is  used,  as  we  shall 
point  out  in  a  later  chapter.  (Chapters  XII  and  XV.) 

With  reference  to  high  schools,  the  cities  are  able  to  maintain 
them  and  to  maintain  them  liberally,  but  the  poorer  towns  and  the 
rural  communities  usually  are  not.  The  census  basis  of  appor- 
tionment, whatever  the  limits,  offers  no  help  here,  and  some  form 
of  aid  beyond  what  comes  from  the  census  apportionment  for 
those  above  fourteen  or  fifteen  years  of  age  is  necessary  if  the 
state  deems  it  desirable  to  encourage  the  formation  of  such 
schools  in  the  smaller  communities.  Under  the  census  basis  of 
apportionment  no  reward  is  given  for  any  efforts  in  this  direction, 
though  in  justice  some  definite  reward  ought  to  be  given  to  every 


The  School  Census  Basis  103 

community  for  every  pupil  taught  in  a  secondary  school.  This 
we  shall  consider  more  in  detail  in  a  later  chapter.  ( Chapter 
XIV.) 

What  is  true  of  high  schools  is  equally  true  of  evening  schools, 
/and  of  all  other  special  types  of  schools  or  teachers.  Where 
evening  schools  and  special  types  of  schools  are  established  they 
constitute,  under  the  census  basis  of  apportionment,  merely  an 
additional  drain  upon  the  resources  of  the  community,  the  state 
giving  no  financial  recognition  to  such  efforts.  Though  this 
may  be  fully  justified  by  practical  conditions,  it  is  theoretically 
wrong.  The  equalization  accomplished  by  withholding  all  aid 
from  such  forms  of  extra  effort  could  be  accomplished  much 
more  fully  and  in  a  more  thoroughly  just  manner  by  using  a 
better  basis  of  apportionment,  as  we  shall  point  out  more  fully  in 
Chapters  XII  and  XV. 

Under  the  census  basis  of  apportionment  there  is  also  no  prac- 
ticable means  of  dispensing  \vith  the  commonly  charged  "tuition 
fees  "  between  the  districts.  It  is  certainly  an  anomolous  con- 
dition, when  the  state  professes  to  maintain  a  general  and  free 
system  of  education  throughout  the  state,  and  when  the  whole 
state  is  taxed  for  the  partial  support  of  this  free  system  of 
common  schools,  that  a  child,  passing  temporarily  to  another 
school  district,  must  pay  a  tuition  fee  before  he  is  allowed  to  at- 
tend the  free  school,  and  chiefly  because  he  is  not  on  the  census 
rolls  of  the  district  and  the  district  draws  no  state  aid  for  him. 
With  high  schools,  which  are  not  universally  maintained,  it  is 
a  somewhat  different  matter,  but  for  the  grades  below  the  high 
school,  which  represent  the  "  common  school,"  there  certainly 
ought  to  be  no  tuition.  The  abolition  of  the  charge,  however,  is 
not  practicable  under  any  system  except  one  which  counts  at- 
tendance at  school.  With  the  abolition  of  the  "  rate  bill  "  tuition 
was  made  free  for  the  census  children  of  each  district ;  the  ulti- 
mate conclusion  of  the  matter  is  the  abolition  of  inter-district 
\  tuition  fees  and  free  education  for  the  children  of  the  state 
I  anywhere  in  the  state.  California  stands  almost  alone  among  the 
/  states  in  taking  a  theoretically  correct  position-  on  this  matter. 
The  basis  of  apportionment  being  teachers  and  the  average 
daily  attendance,  as  will  be  described  later,  it  has  been  decided 
that  every  common  school  district  which  receives  state  aid  must 
give  absolutely  free  instruction  to  every  child  who  comes  to  the 


IO4  School  Funds  and  their  Apportionment 

school,2  and,  further,  that  no  high  school  district  may  charge 
a  non-resident  a  higher  rate  of  tuition  than  the  difference  between 
the  actual  cost  of  the  instruction  per  pupil  and  the  amount  of  aid 
per  pupil  received  from  the  state.3 

(2)  The  common  idea  as  to  the  effect  of  the  distribution  of 
"  census  money  "  is  that  it  not  only  reduces  the  tax  rate  but  also 
tends  to  equalize  the  burdens  of  communities.  This  idea  prob- 
ably arises  from  the  fact  that  all  are  taxed  equally  according 
to  wealth  and  the  money  received  is  distributed  equally  to  all 
communities  having  children  to  educate.  As  to  the  effects  of 
such  a  distribution  few  school  men  seem  to  have  made  any  in- 
quiry. Such  general  taxation  and  distribution  naturally  reduces 
the  local  tax  rate,  as  any  form  of  general  aid  would  do,  but  that 
it  does  not  always  tend  to  equalize  either  the  burdens  or  the  ad- 
vantages of  education  may  be  s'hown  by  a  few  examples. 

Taking  the  same  nine  Wisconsin  counties  used  in  Table  No.  10, 
Chapter  IV,  adding  on  the  state  apportionment  of  income  from 
the  state  school  fund  and  the  state  school  tax,  which  was  equal, 
for  1903-04,  to  about  $1.821/2  per  census  child,4  and  using  the 
data  given  in  Table  10  for  calculation,  we  get  the  following : 

2  Decisions  of  the  Attorney-General  of  California,  given   to  the   State 
Superintendent  of  Schools,  and  declared  in  force  by  him. 

3  "  An  Act  creating  a  fund  for  the  benefit  and  support  of  high  schools 
and   providing    for    its    distribution."      Approved    March    2,    1903,    and    as 
amended  by  Senate  Bill  No.  266,  Session  of  1905,  Sec.  9. 

4  Rept.  Supt.  Pub.  Instr.  for  Wis.,  1903-04,  Pt.  II,  p.  91.     Calculated  by 
dividing  the  entire  amount  apportioned   ($1,400,612.77)   by  the  number  of 
school  census  children  (758,626)  on  which  the  apportionment  was  made. 

The  state  apportionments  in  Table  23  are  taken  from  the  Wisconsin  Re- 
port, Pt  II,  p.  91. 


The  School  Census  Basis 


105 


TABLE  No.  23. 


EFFECT  OF  THE  STATE  APPORTIONMENT  ON  CENSUS   IN  CERTAIN    WISCONSIN 

COUNTIES. 


County. 


Ashland 

Barren 

Bayfield 

Brown 

Buffalo 

Burnett .  . 


State 

Average 

Average  rate 

Average  rate  of 

apportionment 

amount  per 

necessary  B  to 

reduction  of  tax 

1903-04. 

teacher 

raise  balance 

by  state 

employed. 

of  $250. 

apportionment. 

$6,084.04 

$46.44 

5.50  mills. 

18% 

13,30949 

96.44 

1.93       "' 

38% 

19,460.04 

84.61 

3.84 

34% 

8,455.58 

84o5 

1.34       " 

34% 

32,688.20 

176.69 

.46 

74% 

11,560.38 

87.58 

1.97       " 

35% 

6,519.91 

60.37 

8.78       " 

24% 

I2,094.l6 

134.38 

.66      " 

54% 

219,680.30 

103.29 

.17      " 

76% 

The  last  column  shows  what  would  be  the  effect,  for  this 
group  of  counties,  of  an  absolutely  impartial  distribution  of  state 
aid  on  the  census  basis,  aid  from  any  other  source  being  neglected. 
While  the  rate  of  tax  would  be  reduced,  of  course,  the  rate  of 
reduction  would  be  greatest  in  those  counties  where  the  rate  was 
the  least,  and  the  inequalities  resulting  after  the  state  aid  is  ap- 
plied would  be  relatively  greater  than  they  were  before. 

These  averages  are,  of  course,  for  the  counties  as  wholes  and 
for  the  year  1903-04,  and  include  town  and  city  schools  as  well  as 
small  country  schools.  In  the  former  the  local  tax  rate  would 
generally  be  lower  while  in  the  latter  the  local  tax  rate  would 
have  to  be  much  higher  to  produce  $250  per  school, — so  high, 
in  fact,  that  it  probably  would  be  difficult  to  raise  that  amount  in 
many  districts.  It  may  possibly  happen  that  some  school  in 
the  county  averaging  the  lowest  amount  per  teacher  (Adams) 
may  receive  more  money  on  census  than  the  average  of  the 
county  receiving  the  most  per  teacher  (Milwaukee),  but  if  so  this 
would  have  to  be  offset  by  a  large  number  of  schools  receiving 
much  below  the  average.  The  opposite  of  this  might  also,  na- 
turally, be  true.  The  effect  of  any  variation  from  the  average, 

5  The  rate  per  teacher  employed  is  the  only  basis  upon  which  anything 
like  a  proper  estimate  can  be  made.  The  great  expense  of  a  school  is  for 
the  salary  of  the  teacher.  $250  per  school  is  certainly  a  minimum  estimate. 
This  gives  only  $30  a  month  for  the  minimum  term  of  seven  months,  and 
leaves  but  $40  a  year  for  all  other  expenses.  The  rate  of  tax  necessary  to 
produce  the  balance  of  $250  is  found  by  calculating  from  the  average  valu- 
ations given  in  Table  No.  10,  Ch.  IV. 


io6 


School  Funds  and  their  Apportionment 


as  in  the  case  of  the  two  Connecticut  counties  given  in  Tables 
7  and  8,  Ch.  IV,  is  to  cause  the  rate  of  tax  to  fluctuate  corres- 
pondingly. Certain  schools  in  Adams  County  would  require 
more  than  5.50  mills  to  produce  the  balance  of  $250,  while  cer- 
tain schools  in  Brown  County  would  require  less  than  .46  mills 
to  produce  this  same  amount. 

When  we  remember  that  each  school  must  have  a  minimum 
amount  of  money  to  pay  the  salary  of  the  teacher  and  the  in- 
cidental expenses  of  the  school,  and  that  there  is  little  difference 
between  the  amount  of  money  needed  for  a  school  of  forty,  thirty, 
twenty,  or  ten  children,  we  can  see  what  inequalities  must  not 
only  exist  but  even  be  produced  under  a  per-capita  on  census 
basis  of  distribution.  Assuming  that  the  percentage  of  enroll- 
ment on  census  6  for  the  small  schools  of  these  counties  is  the 
same  as  the  state  average,  the  cities  excluded,  viz.,  65%,  we  get 
the  following  schedule  of  aid,  at  $1.82^2  per-capita  on  census, 
toward  the  expenses  of  a  series  of  small  schools. 

TABLE  No.  24. 

SHOWING    HOW    SMALL    SCHOOLS    FARE    UNDER    THE    CENSUS    BASIS    OF    APPOR- 
TIONMENT. 

(Calculated  on  the  Wis.  State  Av.  for  1903-04,  of  65%  of  census  enrolled, 

cities  excluded,  and  a  census  apportionment  of  $1.82^  per  capita,  as 

determined  from  statistical  data  given  in  the  Rept.  Supt.  Pub. 

Instr.,  Wis.,  for  1903-04.) 


Census 
4-20 

years. 
ii 

Enrollment 
@  State  Av. 

of  65%. 

7 

Value  of  the  State  apportionment. 
@  $i.82l/2  per         %  of  $250  paid 
capita  on  census.       by  State  Appt. 
20.08                          8.0% 
29.20                        n.6% 
41.98                        16.8% 
56.38                        22.5% 
71.18                        28.4% 
83.95                         33-6% 
H3.I5                         45-3% 
140.53                         56.2% 
167.90                        67.2% 
197.10                        79.2% 
224.48                        89.8% 

250.0T                              IOO.O% 

16 

io-U 

2T.  . 

r 

.   15 

-il 

2O-I- 

•JO.  . 

-^  1 

.    254- 

46 

3   1 

•3Q 

62  

.    404- 

77.  . 

IV    | 

.    50 

O2 

60— 

108  

.    7O4- 

127 

'  '      1 

80 

137.. 

.  80 

If  we  halve  or  double  the  per-capita  rate  we  correspondingly 
halve  or  double  the  figures  of  the  last  two  columns.     This  being 

6  The  Wisconsin  census  is  from  four  to  twenty  years. 


The  School  Census  Basis  107 

true,  a  natural  proposal  for  helping  the  small  schools  would  be 
to  increase  the  state  school  tax  so  as  to  increase  the  per-capita 
apportionment.  An  increase  to  a  per-capita  census  apportion- 
ment of  $10.00  would  give  the  school  with  a  census  of  23  the 
sum  of  $230,  with  which,  with  local  taxation  added,  it  could  do 
good  work.  But  this  would  also  give  the  school  with  a  census 
of  46  the  sum  of  $460,  though  its  enrollment  would  be  but  30 
as  compared  with  15  for  the  smaller  school,  while  the  city  school 
enrolling  but  50%  to  40%  of  its  census  would  receive  from 
$1,000  to  $1,250  for  every  teacher  of  50  children.  This  certainly 
would  seem  neither  just  nor  wise,  yet  it  is  what  would  actually 
happen  in  at  least  twenty  states  under  present  laws. 

Turning  to  the  statistical  tables  for  these  nine  Wisconsin 
counties,  and  excluding  all  cities  under  a  Superintendent,  (Ash- 
land, Green  Bay,  and  Milwaukee),  and  calculating,  we  get  the 
following  table : 

TABLE  No.  25. 

SIZE   OF    SCHOOLS    AND    SALARIES   OF   TEACHERS    COMPARED    WITH    THE    NET    TAX 

RATE. 

(Calculated  from  statistical  data  for  1903-04  given  in  the  Bien.  Rept.  of 
the  State  Supt.  for  Wis.,  1903-04,  pp.  99,  102,  104,  118. 

1903-04.  1903-04. 

Schools  enrolling  %  of  teachers  receiving 

Counties.  10  or  less.       11  to  20.      Less  than  $25     Over  $50  Net  tax 

per  month,     per  month.  rate. 

Adams 5%  25%  39%  i%  5.50  mills. 

Ashland 8%  25%  o%  5%tO)  1-93 

Barren i  %  2%  4%  6%  3.84      " 

Bayfield 14%  23%  o%  10%  1.34 

Brown o%  6%  9%  4%tO)        46 

Buffalo i%  10%  8%  5%  1.97 

Burnett i%  6%  i%  i%  8.78 

Calumet o%  18%  12%  4%                .66      " 

Milwaukee o%  3%  o%  48%f(c)        .17 


*  Average  rate  necessary  to  produce  $250  after  deducting  the  State  ap- 
portionment, though  this  includes  the  cities  in  three  counties.  Excluding 
the  cities,  the  net  rate  would  be  somewhat  higher. 

t  In  considering  these  counties  as  wholes,  the  following  need  to  be 
added : 

(a)  7  M.  -(-67  F.  teachers  in  the  city  of  Ashland  averaged:  M.  $809.50; 
F.  $546.86. 

(b)  5   M.  -L.  79  F.  teachers   in  the   city  of   Green   Bay   averaged :   M. 
$900.00;  F.  $500.00. 

(c)  128  M.  -|-  856  F.  teachers  in  the  city  of  Milwaukee  averaged:    M. 
$1,140.62;  F.  $635.30. 


io8 


School  Funds  and  their  Apportionment 


A  comparison  of  this  table  with  the  preceding  one  will  show  to 
what  a  large  degree  the  census  basis  of  apportionment  fails  to 
relieve  burdens  and  to  equalize  the  educational  advantages  among 
schools.  It  is  at  once  evident  that  30%  of  the  schools  of  Adams 
County,  33%  of  the  schools  of  Ashland  County,  and  37%  of  the 
Schools  of  Bayfield  County  would  receive  less  than  $60  a  year 
from  the  state  aid.  Notwithstanding  this  the  average  amount 
received  for  1903-04  from  the  state  apportionment  was  about 
twice  as  much  per  teacher  employed  for  Ashland  or  Bayfield 
as  for  Adams  County,  indicating  the  presence  of  many  large 
schools  in  these  counties  and  a  number  of  small  schools  in  Adams 
County.  Due  to  the  greater  school  population  the  total  state 
apportionment  was  more  than  twice  as  large  for  Ashland  County 
as  for  Adams  County,  while  the  number  of  teachers  employed,  the 
city  of  Ashland  included,  was  as  138  to  131,  and  the  average  valu- 
tion  per  teacher  employed  was  as  79  to  36.  (See  Table  No.  10, 
Chapter  IV.)  It  is  thus  easy  for  Ashland  County  to  pay  good 
salaries  on  a  low  tax  rate,  but  it  would  be  difficult  for  Adams 
County  to  do  so  even  on  a  high  tax  rate. 

What  has  been  shown  for  Wisconsin  may  be  shown  similarly 
for  other  states.  To  give  another  illustration  we  will  take  the 
eight  counties  of  the  State  of  Missouri,  and  the  city  of  St. 
Louis,  as  given  in  Table  No.  n,  Chapter  IV.  Calculating  as 
in  the  preceding  table  for  Wisconsin,  we  get  the  following: 

TABLE  No.  26. 

EFFECT   OF   THE   STATE   APPORTIONMENT   ON    CENSUS    IN    CERTAIN    MISSOURI 

COUNTIES. 

(Calculated  from  data  given  in  the  statistical  tables  of  the  55th  Rcpt.  Supt. 
Pub.  Instr.,  Mo.,  1904,  and  from  data  given  in  Table  No.  u,  Ch.  IV.) 

State 
Counties.  apportionment, 

@  $1.29. 

Adair $8,778.29 

Andrew 6,480.44 

Atchison 5,930.51 

Audrain 8,454.27 

Barry 10,802.46 

Barton 7,509.31 

Bates 11,498.27 

Benton., 7,018.76 

St.  Louis  (City)..  230,120.27 


Av.  value  of 

Av.  tax  rate  to 

Av.  rate  of 

apportionment 

raise  balance 

reduction  of  tax 

per  teacher 

of  $250 

by  State 

employed. 

per  teacher. 

apportionment. 

$58.14 

5.27  mills. 

23% 

60.00 

2.70      " 

24% 

47.04 

3-05       " 

19% 

57-91 

3-24 

23% 

78.85 

5-20        " 

31% 

53.26 

4.60 

22% 

66.46 

3.12       " 

26% 

64.39 

4.70     " 

26% 

123.79 

.56   " 

49% 

The  School  Census  Basis  109 

The  averages  in  the  next  to  the  last  column,  though  more 
nearly  uniform  for  these  eight  counties  than  was  the  case  with 
the  Wisconsin  counties,  still  show  marked  inequalities  when  com- 
pared with  the  amount  received  by  the  city  of  St.  Louis,  which, 
with  a  property  valuation  per  teacher  6.8  times  as  large  as  the 
county  having  the  lowest  average  valuation  per  teacher  (Barry) 
and  3.2  times  as  large  as  the  county  having  the  highest  (Andrew), 
receives,  due  to  but  48%  of  its  school  census  being  enrolled,  a 
sum  per  teacher  2.6  times  as  large  as  the  county  receiving  the 
lowest  average  sum  (Atchison)  and  1.5  times  as  large  as  the 
county  receiving  the  highest  average  sum  (Barry). 

These  inequalities  in  Missouri  are  further  increased  by  the 
fact  that  Missouri  has  variable  county  and  permanent  funds,  the 
income  of  which  is  also  apportioned  to  the  districts  on  census 
by  the  counties.  This  only  accentuates  the  inequalities  produced 
by  the  state  apportionment.  Then,  still  further,  the  different  dis- 
tricts receive  their  proper  portion  of  the  income  of  certain  vari- 
able township  1 6th  section  grant  funds.  The  presence  or  ab- 
sence of  these  township  funds,  which  vary  greatly  according  to 
the  size  of  the  portion  of  the  township  included  in  the  district, 
according  to  the  original  value  pf  the  township  lands,  and  accord- 
ing to  the  degree  of  care  with  which  a  past  generation  has 
looked  after  these  funds,  is  further  neglected  in  making  the 
district  apportionments. 

These  township  funds  were  originally  granted  as  permanent 
endowments  to  the  people  of  the  township  to  help  them  main- 
tain the  schools  of  the  township.  But  the  township  system  of 
government  has  been  abandoned  in  most  states,  and  these  old 
township  grants  vary  so  much  in  value  and  have  been  so  sub- 
divided by  the  district  system,  as  the  next  to  the  last  column 
of  Table  No.  27  will  show,  that  they  ought  to  be  gathered  up 
in  one  state  fund,  as  has  been  done  in  Arkansas ; 7  added  to  the 

1  "  An  Act  to  provide  for  the  transfer  of  the  i6th  section  fund."  State 
of  Ark.,  Act  CLIX,  approved  May  8,  1899.  This  was  done  in  accordance 
with  an  Act  of  Congress,  enacted  in  response  to  a  request  of  the  General 
Assembly  of  the  State  of  Arkansas  and  approved  March  8,  1898  (U.  S. 
Statutes  at  Large,  55th  Cong.,  Sess.  II,  Ch.  54),  modifying  the  compact 
entered  into  between  the  United  States  and  the  State  of  Arkansas  on  her 
admission  to  the  Union,  and  authorizing  the  payment  of  the  amount  aris- 
ing from  the  sales  of  i6th  section  lands  into  the  common  school  fund  of 
the  State,  and  a  pro  rata  distribution,  in  the  future,  of  the  income  from 
the  same. 


no 


School  Funds  and  their  Apportionment 


different  county  funds ;  or  taken  into  consideration  and  equalized 
in  making  the  county  apportionment,  as  is  done  in  Indiana.8  These 
funds  properly  belong  to  the  state  as  a  whole.  The  present  gen- 
eration, who  receive  the  benefit  of  these  funds  in  the  form  of 
low  taxation,  had  nothing  whatever  to  do  with  their  formation. 

The  inequalities  produced  by  these  unequalized  county  and 
township  funds  may  be  shown  by  a  study  of  a  few  of  the  districts 
of  any  one  of  these  Missouri  counties.  We  will  take  the  first 
twelve  of  the  eighty-six  districts  of  Andrew  County.  This 
county  has  the  largest  average  property  valuation  per  teacher 
and  the  highest  percentage  of  enrollment  of  any  of  the  eight 
counties.  This  gives  the  following : 

TABLE  No.  27. 

INEQUALITIES   RESULTING   FROM   VARIOUS   UNEQUALIZED   PERMANENT   FUNDS    IN 
ANDREW   COUNTY,    MISSOURI. 

(Data  taken  from  a  copy  of  the  Annual  Apportionment  Sheet,   for   1904, 

for  Andrew  Co.,  kindly  furnished  by  the  Co.  Supt.  of  Schools. 

All  data  for  the  year  1904.) 

Amount  received  by  district  from: 


Dist. 

No. 

I 

Property 
valuation 
of  district. 

$71  035 

Census 
children. 
6-20  years. 

44 

State 
fund 
@  $1.29. 

$5680 

County 
fund 
@  $0.95%. 

$42  O2 

Township 
funds. 

$11  51 

All 
funds. 

$IIO  33 

2  

62,685 

30 

3873 

2865 

786 

75.24 

•j 

73  675 

35 

45  18 

33  42 

841 

8701 

4.  . 

43 

41  06 

IO  33 

106.90 

c    . 

.  .        61  070 

46 

5Q  38 

4?  Q2 

II  06 

114  76 

6  

89,595 

42 

54.22 

40  ii 

76  54 

170.87 

7.  . 

74,42^ 

33 

4260 

31  51 

60  14 

134  2  c; 

8 

68860 

32 

41  31 

30  56 

17  6l 

8048 

o.  . 

.  124,440 

46 

6068 

43  92 

3098 

135.58 

10  

16  410 

4 

5  17 

382 

269 

ii  68 

70  8lO 

28 

36  15 

26  74 

1886 

8l  75 

12.  . 

02.01  5 

40 

51.64 

^820 

H.Q7 

IO7.8l 

The  census  column  shows  that  each  of  these  twelve  districts  is 
a  single  teacher  district.  Hence  the  annual  expense  of  each 
for  maintaining  a  school  ought  to  be  about  the  same,  but  the 
amounts  received  as  aid  vary  greatly,  and  bear  little  relation  to 
the  taxable  valuation  of  the  different  districts.  In  general,  the 


8  Acts  of  1897,  p.  291.     Approved  and  in  force  March  8,  1897. 
.  Ind.,  1901,  S»ec.  5973. 


Rev. 


The  School  Census  Basis  HI 

amount  of  aid  received  is  most  where  the  valuation  is  highest. 
This  holds  in  a  general  way  for  the  remaining  seventy-four  dis- 
tricts as  well  as  for  the  above  twelve. 

To  give  another  illustration  of  the  effect  of  the  census  ap- 
portionment on  the  tax  rate  we  will  take  the  same  eight  counties 
of  Kansas  given  in  Table  No.  12,  Ch.  IV,  and,  calculating  as  in 
the  preceding  tables,  we  get  the  following : 

TABLE  No.  28. 

EFFECT  OF  THE  STATE  APPORTIONMENT  ON    CENSUS   IN   CERTAIN   KANSAS 

COUNTIES. 

(Calculated  from  data  given  in  the  itfh  Bien.  Rept.  Supt.  Pub.  Instr.  of 
Kans.,  1903-04,  and  from  data  given  in  Table  No.  12,  Ch.  IV.) 


Counties. 
Allen  

State  fund 
apportionment, 
1904,  @  $0.82. 

$6,659.22 

Av.  value  of 
Per  teacher 
employed. 

$62.23 

Av.  rate  necessary 
to  produce  balance 
of  $250. 

3.09  mills.* 

Av.  rate  of 
reduction  of  tax 
by  State  aid, 

21% 

Anderson     .  .  . 

•}  728  54 

Tv'U 

6.50      " 

13% 

Atchison  

6,241.84 

OJ'O  * 

72.58 

W«OW 

3.00      " 

o  /** 

20% 

Barber.      .     . 

I  04^  4O 

2?  14 

10  04      " 

**y  fv 

8% 

Barton 

o  ncy  -J2 

•**O*       T^ 

3882 

•*•  v  .  *-"-(• 

460       "     t 

14% 

Biourbon  
Brown  
Butler  

...    7,531.70 
...    5,576.82 
.  .  .    6,315.64 

o  *w 
59-77 
54-67 
32.72 

iT'v-'i/ 

4-13        " 
3.62          '      $ 

6-39        " 

AiT  /" 

24% 

24% 
13%. 

$  This  county  has  the  longest  average  term  and  pays  the  highest  average 
salaries  to  both  men  and  women  teachers  of  any  county  in  this  group. 
f  This  county  stands  second  for  the  same  items. 
*  This  county  stands  third  for  the  same  items. 

The  effect  of  the  state  apportionment  made  evenly  to  all  on 
census,  here,  as  in  the  case  of  the  Wisconsin  counties,  is  to 
leave  the  inequalities  as  great,  if  not  greater,  than  before.  That 
the  inequalities  are  not  relatively  much  greater  after  applying  the 
apportionment  than  before,  as  was  the  case  in  Wisconsin,  is  largely 
due  to  the  fact  that  the  schools  of  these  Kansas  counties 
average  more  evenly  and  generally  higher  in  census  children  than 
those  of  the  Wisconsin  counties,  and  that  the  amount  of  aid  given 
is  much  smaller.  This  is  equally  true  of  the  Missouri  counties 
of  Table  No.  26.  It  will  be  noticed  that  here,  as  in  the  case  with 
the  Wisconsin  group  of  counties,  the  rate  of  reduction  of  the 
tax  rate  is  least  where  the  rate  is  highest  and  most  where  the  rate 
is  least. 

When  we  turn  from  a  consideration  of  states  where  the  per- 


ii2  School  Funds  and  their  Apportionment 

capita  amount  distributed  is  small,  as  is  the  case  in  Kansas  (820.) 
and  Missouri  ($1.29),  to  states  where  the  per-capita  amount  dis- 
tributed is  large,  the  inequalities  resulting  under  a  census  of 
distribution  become  more  marked  and  more  unjust.  This  may 
be  illustrated  quite  well  by  taking  California  as  an  example. 
The  apportionment  of  income  from  the  state  school  fund  and  the 
state  school  tax  for  1904,  distributed  to  the  counties  on  census, 
was  equal  to  $9.47  per-capita  on  the  census,  5-18  years  of  age, 
taken  the  preceding  April,  and  upon  which  the  apportionment 
is  based.  Taking  the  same  eight  counties  used  in  Table  No.  13, 
Chapter  IV,  and  the  combined  city  and  county  of  San  Francisco, 
and  calculating  as  in  the  preceding  cases,  we  get  the  result 
shown  in  the  following  table: 

TABLE  No.  29. 

EFFECT  OF  THE   STATE   APPORTIONMENT   ON    CENSUS    IN    CERTAIN    CALIFORNIA 

COUNTIES. 

(Calculated  from  data  given  in  Table  No.  13,  Ch.  IV,  and  in  the  statistical 
tables  in  the  2ist  Bien.  Rept.  Supt.  Pub.  Instr.,  Cat.,  1903-04.) 


Counties. 

Alameda  
Alpine  

State 
apportion-      c 
ment,  1904. 

.$332,046 
72Q 

No.  of  Pr. 
md  Gr.  Trs. 
employed, 
1903-04. 

575 
3 

Av.  value  of 
apportion- 
ment per 
teacher. 

$577-00 
243.00 

Average 
yearly 
salary  paid.* 

$813.15 
529.75 

Per  cent 
from 
State 
funds. 

70% 
46% 

Amador  , 
Butte  

.       24,148 
41,724 

O 

63 
1  08 

383-00 
386.00 

487.22 
512.88 

80% 

75% 

Calaveras  
Colusa 

.       26,411 
17  7^7 

73 

CQ 

36l.OO 
?4600 

585.90 
525.38 

62% 
66% 

Contra  Costa..  . 
Del  Norte 

•      x  /  ?/  o/ 
44,944 

6  420 

oo 

98 

18 

OT-V/*     w 

458.00 
356.00 

667.00 
522.40 

«     68% 
66% 

San  Francisco.  . 

.  .    865,425 

996 

868.00 

921.59 

94% 

*  Calculated  by  multiplying  the  average  monthly  salary  for  primary  and 
grammar  school  teachers  in  the  county  by  the  length  of  the  term. 

The  last  two  columns  are  indeed  interesting,  and  show  the 
presence  of  very  great  inequalities.  It  is  an  easy  matter  for 
San  Francisco  and  Alameda  counties  to  pay  large  salaries.  If 
San  Francisco  paid  less  than  an  average  of  $862.75  per  year 
for  salaries  it  would  receive  more  .money  from  the  state  than  it 
could  legally  spend,  as  the  state  law  requires  that  "  all  state 
money  must  *  *  be  applied  exclusively  to  the  payment  of 


The  School  Census  Basis  113 

teachers  of  primary  and  grammar  schools,"  °  except  an  allowance 
in  cities  of  $50  per  1,000  census  children  (equal  to  $5.25  per 
teacher  for  San  Francisco  for  1904)  for  school  libraries.10  Such 
salaries  would  be  almost  impossible  in  any  other  county  except 
Alameda,  yet  the  average  property  valuation  per  teacher  em- 
ployed in  San  Francisco  is  2.76  times  (Table  No.  13)  the  average 
for  the  State,  2.46  times  that  of  the  county  of  the  eight  (Colusa) 
having  the  highest  average  taxable  valuation  per  teacher,  and 
7.26  times  that  of  the  county  of  the  eight  (Amador)  having  the 
lowest  average  taxable  valuation  per  teacher.  Such  great  in- 
equalities as  these  should  be  equalized  by  the  adoption  of  a  better 
basis  of  apportionment.11 

The  statistical  returns  for  Indiana  give  details  for  rural  schools, 
town  schools,  and  country  schools,  though  property  valuations 
for  these  divisions  are  not  obtainable.  It  is  possible,  however, 
to  calculate  the  average  value  of  the  census  apportionment  per 
teacher  employed  during  1903-04,  for  each  of  these  groups,  which 
we  will  do.  Counting  the  apportionment  for  1904  as  $2.90  per 
census  child,12  multiplying  the  census  apportionment  by  the  num- 
ber of  census  children  in  each  group,13  and  dividing  the  product 
obtained  by  the  number  of  teachers  employed  in  each  group,  gives 
us  the  next  table. 

8  Political  Code  of  Cal,  Sec.  1622. 

10  Ibid.,  Sec.  1714. 

11  This  was  done,  in  large  part,  by  the  Legislature  of  1905,  by  the  adop- 
tion of  Senate  Bill  No.  236,  as  will  be  explained  later  under  Ch.  XII. 

12  According  to  the  Kept.  Supt.  Pub.  Instr.   for  Indiana  for  1904,  the 
State  apportionment  of  common  school  revenue  for  the  year  was  $2,223,- 
714.78    (statistical  tables  6a  and  6&),  and  the  school  census  for  1903,  on 
which  the  apportionment  for  1904  was  made,  was  767,436  (p.  509).     This 
gives  a  per  capita  on  census  apportionment  of  $2.90  for  the  year  1903-04 
The  $2.95  given  in  the  State  School  Report  is  found  by  including  the  in- 
come from  the  township  funds. 

13  It  is  necessary  here  to  use  the  census  figures  for  1904,  as  the  detailed 
census  for  1903  was  not  printed.     This  will  cause  slight  but  uniform  vari- 
ations from  the  true  amount,  but  will  not  materially  affect  the  result,  as 
the  annual  apportionment  does  not  vary  but  a  few  cents  in  amount  from 
year  to  year. 


114  School  Funds  and  their  Apportionment 

TABLE  No.  30. 

VALUE    OF    THE    CENSUS    APPORTIONMENT    PER    TEACHER    EMPLOYED    IN    CERTAIN 
INDIANA    COUNTIES. 

(Calculated    for    the    school   year    1903-04    from    data   given   in    statistical 

tables  Nos.  70  and  8  of  the  Kept.  Supt.  Pub.  Instr.,  Indiana,  for 

1904,  and  Table  No.  14,  Chapter  IV.) 

Av.  property  Av.  value  of  State  Appt.  per  teacher  employed. 
r       .  •                                     valuation 

per  teacher  In  township              In  town                   In  city 

in  county.  schools.                   schools.                    schools. 

Adams $81,838  $164.44  $144.23  $155.58 

Allen. 120,391  160.68  162.46  244.10 

Bartholomew 97,832  109.51  1 13.54  131.80 

Benton 127,927  78.52  101.18               

Blackford 82,594  148.28               152.68 

Boone 100,350  122.37  81.63  129.90 

Brown 24,150  120.12  94-73 

Carroll 74,921  103.28  103.24  109.32 

Marion 163,792  128.56               160.86 

The  city  in  Allen  County  is  Ft.  Wayne.  This  County  has  al- 
most twice  the  per-capita  wealth  of  Benton  County,  about  four 
times  the  per-capita  wealth  of  Blackford  or  Boone  County,  and 
about  ten  times  the  per-capita  wealth  of  Brown  County.14  Brown 
County  is  one  of  the  poorest  counties  in  the  State. 

(3)  The  census  basis  method,  'further,  besides  absolutely  dis- 
regarding the  relative  property  valuations  and  rates  of  taxation 
necessary  to  supply  the  balance  needed  to  maintain  the  schools 
for  the  year,  also  disregards  the  efforts  as  well  as  the  needs  of 
the  communities.  Instead  of  offering  an  incentive  to  communi- 
ties to  provide  additional  school  facilities,  to  secure  as  large  an 
enrollment  on  census  as  possible,  to  encourage  pupils  to  come 
to  the  public  schools  instead  of  going  to  private  schools,  to  en- 
force the  compulsory  attendance  and  child-labor  laws  that  the 
average  membership  and  the  average  daily  attendance  may  be 
kept  up  as  high  as  possible,  and  to  increase  the  Beaching  force  in 
over-crowded  schools,  the  census  basis  method  offers  a  premium 
to  short-sighted  or  heavily  taxed  communities  on  just  the  opposite 
of  these  efforts.  The  smaller  the  percentage  of  census  Children 
enrolled  in  the  public  schools  the  greater  the  value-per-child- 
enrolled  of  the  state  apportionment,  and  the  smaller  the  number 

i*  See  Table  No.  14,  Ch.  IV. 


The  School  Census  Basis  115 

of  teachers  who  will  be  needed  for  the  schools.  This  means  a 
lower  local  tax  rate  or  a  longer  term  on  the  same  money.  This 
may  be  seen  from  the  following  table  relating  to  Wisconsin,  which 
has  been  calculated  from  the  same  source  as  the  preceding  tables. 

TABLE  No.  31. 

PERCENTAGE    ENROLLED    AND    THE    VALUE    OF    THE     STATE    APPORTIONMENT    ON 
ENROLLMENT   FOR   CERTAIN    WISCONSIN    COUNTIES. 

(Calculated  on  the  basis  of  the  census  of  the  summer  of  1903  and  the  en- 
rollment for  the  school  year  1903-04,  from  statistical  data  given 
in  the  Kept.  Supt.  Pub.  Instr.,  Wis.,  for  1903-04.) 

Counties,  including  cities  Percentage  of          Value  of  $1.82%  census 

under  a  City  Superintendent.  census,  4-20  apportionment  on 

years  enrolled.  actual  enrollment. 

Adams 77%  $2-37 

Ashland  * 65%  2.81 

Barron 74%  2.46 

Bayfield 74%  2.46 

Brown  f 51%  3-58 

Buffalo 67%  2.73 

Burnett 70%  2.61 

Calumet 50%  3.65 

Milwaukee  % 43%  4-24 

*  City  of  Ashland,  alone 61  %  2.99 

t  City  of  Green  Bay,  alone 56%  3.26 

\  City  of  Milwaukee,  alone 41%  4.45 

State  of  Wisconsin,  average 61%  2.99 

State,  cities  omitted 65%  2.81 

Cities  alone 52%  3.51 

The  last  column  shows  a  new  set  of  inequalities  produced  by  this 
method,  which  more  than  offset  the  gain  to  the  rural  counties  and 
districts  from  the  four-to-twenty  year  census  age  and  the  re- 
quirement that  the  cities  maintain  their  kindergartens  and  high 
schools  by  local  taxation.  The  city  of  Milwaukee's  census  ap- 
portionment was  almost  twice  as  large  per  child  enrolled  for 
1903-04  as  that  of  Adams  County,  the  county  having  the  highest 
percentage  of  census  enrolled  and  the  one  county  of  the  nine 
without  railroads  and  with  no  large  towns. 

The  eight  Kansas  counties  for  which  we  have  complete  statis- 
tics (cities  of  the  second  class  in  the  omitted  counties  not  having 
reported),  and  the  five  largest  cities  in  order  of  size  (Leaven- 
worth,  which  would  have  been  the  fourth,  is  omitted  because  it 


n6  School  Funds  and  their  Apportionment 

failed  to  make  statistical  returns),  illustrate  these  inequalities 
in  the  actual  value  of  the  census  apportionment  even  better 
than  Wisconsin.  The  premium  here,  as  in  Wisconsin,  is  against 
any  effort  to  secure  a  large  enrollment  or  attendance.  The  smaller 
the  enrollment  and  attendance  the  more  state  money  with  which 
to  teach  those  who  do  come. 

TABLE  No.  32. 

VALUE  OF   THE   CENSUS   APPORTIONMENT   ON    ENROLLMENT   AND   AVERAGE   DAILY 
ATTENDANCE   FOR   CERTAIN    KANSAS    COUNTIES. 

(Calculated  on  the  basis  of  the  school  census  of  June,  1903,  and  the  en- 
rollment, attendance,  and  apportionments  for  1903-04,  from  data 
given  in  the  statistical  tables  of  the  Bien.  Rept.  Supt. 
Pub.  Instr.,  Kans.,  for  1903-04.) 

ConntieSy  Percentage  of       Percentage  of        Value  qfSzc.        Value  ofSsc 

cities  included.  census,  5-21  census  in  Appt.  on  Appt.  on 

years  enrolled.      Av.  Dy.  Att.  enrollment.         Av.  Dy.  Att. 

Allen 67%  46%  $1.11  $1.78 

Atchison  * 45%  30%  1.82  2.73 

Barber 86%  60%  .95  1.37 

Barton 65%  58%  1.26  1.41 

Bourbon  f 48%  33%  1.71  2.48 

Chase 84%  55%  .97  1.49 

Chautauqua 90%  56%  .91  1.46 

Cheyenne 86%  59%  .95  i-39 

Largest  cities — 

Kansas  City 58%  43%  1.41  1.90 

Topeka 63%  48%  1.30  1.71 

Wichita 66%  52%  1.24  1.57 

*  Atchison 53%  40%  1.55  2.02 

t  Fort  Scott 54%  4i%  i-52  1.98 

Making  similar  calculations  for  the  eight  Missouri  counties,  the 
the  three  largest  cities  in  the  State  of  Missouri,  and  the  state 
averages  for  rural  schools,  city  and  town  schools,  and  the  state 
as  a  whole,  we  get  the  following: 


The  School  Census  Basis  117 

TABLE  No.  33- 

VALUE  OF   THE  CENSUS   APPORTIONMENT   ON    ENROLLMENT   AND   AVERAGE   DAILY 
ATTENDANCE  FOR  CERTAIN    MISSOURI   COUNTIES. 

(Calculated  on  the  basis  of  the  census  of  May,  1904,  the  enrollment  and 

attendance  for  the  school  year  1903-04,  and  the  annual  apportionment 

of  July,  1904,  from  data  given  in  the  statistical  tables  of  the 

An.  Kept.  Supt.  Pub.  Instr.,  Mo.,  1904.) 

Per  cent  of  census,  6-20  Yrs.  Value  of  $1.29  +  on 

Counties  (cities  included).  Enrolled.     In  Av.  Dy.  Att.     Enrollment.    Av.  Dy.  Att. 

Adair.* 80%  48%  $1.61  $2.68 

Andrew 103%  48%  1.25  2.68 

Atchison 95%  60%  1.37  2.15 

Audrain  f 78%  56%  1.66  2.30 

Barry 100%  54%  1.29  2.39 

Barton 93%  58%  1.39  2.22 

Bates 90%  65%  1.43.  1.98 

Benton 77%  48%  1.67  2.68 

Three  largest  cities — 

St.  Louis 48%  35%  2.69  2.80 

Kansas  City 46%  34%  2.80  3.79 

St.  Joseph 27%  22%  4.78  5.86 

*  Includes  city  of  Kirksville. .     78%  50%  1.65  2.58 

t  Includes  city  of  Mexico 69%  45%  1.87  2.87 

State  of  Missouri 74%  46%  1.74  2.80 

Rural  schools 88%  51%  1.46  2.53 

City  and  town  schools 59%  42%  2.18  3.07 

The  inequalities  shown  by  the  last  two  columns  are  such  as  to 
indicate  the  need  of  a  reform  in  the  methods  of  apportioning 
funds  in  Missouri.  These  inequalities  are  accentuated  when  one 
remembers  that  in  the  large  cities,  where  the  actual  per-capita 
value  of  the  apportionment  runs  the  highest,  the  number  of 
census  children  on  which  this  high  per-capita  value  is  drawn  is 
very  large.  This  gives  the  cities  a  large  sum  of  money  each  year 
to  do  work  which  they  are  never  called  upon  to  do  and  which 
they  make  no  preparation  for  doing.  This  may  be  shown  by 
comparing  the  city  of  St.  Joseph  with  the  totals  for  the  first  six 
counties  in  the  table  1{J  given  above. 

15  Data  taken   from   the   statistical  tables   in   the  An.   Kept.  Supt.  Pub. 
Instr.,  Mo.,  for  1904. 


n8  School  Funds  and  their  Apportionment 

Census.      Enrollment.      Av.  Dy.  Att.       Trs.  employed. 

City  of  St.  Joseph 35,86s  9,696  8,041  280 

Totals  for  first  six  counties ..  37,329         33,893  20,116  809 

The  total  apportionment  on  the  census  number,  divided  by  the 
number  of  teachers  actually  employed,  gives  an  average  value 
per  teacher  of  the  apportionment  of  $165.24  for  St.  Joseph  as 
against  $59.52  for  the  six  counties.  While  St.  Joseph  has  a 
lower  percentage  of  enrollment  and  average  daily  attendance  on 
census  than  the  usual  large  city,  what  is  true  of  it  compared 
with  county  averages  is  true  in  a  degree  of  almost  every  large 
city.  (See  Table  No.  38,  Chapter  X,  for  the  percentage  en- 
rolled in  the  four  largest  cities  in  each  of  the  five  states  studied.) 
Turning  to  California,  where  the  value  of  the  apportionment  is 
is  large,  and  making  similar  calculations  for  the  eight  California 
counties  used  in  the  preceding  table,  for  the  three  largest  cities 
in  the  state,  and  for  the  state  as  a  whole,  we  get  the  next  table. 

TABLE  No.  34. 

VALUE  OF  THE   CENSUS   APPORTIONMENT   ON   ENROLLMENT   AND   AVERAGE   DAILY 
ATTENDANCE   FOR   CERTAIN    CALIFORNIA   COUNTIES. 

(Calculated  on  the  basis  of  the  school  census  of  April,  1903,  on  which  the 
apportionments  of  1903-04  are  made,  and  the  enrollment  and  attendance 
for  the  school  year  1903-04,  from  data  given  in  the  statistical  tables  of 
the  2ist  Bien.  Kept.  Supt.  Pub.  Instr.,  CaL,  1903-04.) 


Counties 
(cities  included). 

Ala  me  da 

Per  cent 
5-17  j 

Enrolled. 

•    70% 
•    78% 

.  79% 
.  85% 
.  76% 
•  83% 
87% 

of  census  ', 
vears. 

Av.  Dy.  Att. 

53% 
54% 
58% 
57% 
54% 
61% 
56% 
57% 
38% 
53% 

Value  of$g.47  of 
State  apportionment  on 

Enrollment.      Av.  Dy.  Att. 

$13-53               $17.87 
12.14                  17.72 
I2.0O                   16.33 

18.14             16.61 
12.46             17-54 
11-41             15-53 
10.88             16.93 
12.14             16.61 
14.79             24.92 
12.63             17-87 

Av.  length 
of  term 
in  days. 
1003-04- 

195 
I63 
162 
158 

186 
150 
186 

171 

210 

165 

Alpine  

Am  a  dor 

Butte  

Calaveras 

Colusa  

Contra  Costa 

Del  Norte 

78% 

San  Francisco  
State  of  California. 

.  64% 

•  75% 

Making  similar  calculations  for  the  first  eight  counties  of 
Indiana,  the  three  counties  containing  the  three  largest  cities,  and 
the  averages  for  the  State,  we  get  the  next  table.  The  statis- 
tical returns  for  Indiana  enabling  us  to  separate  the  country 


The  School  Census  Basis  119 

schools,  town  schools,  and  city  schools,  we  arrange  the  table  so 
as  to  show  the  value  of  the  state  apportionment  for  each  class. 
For  the  percentages  of  enrollment  see  Table  No.  39,  Chapter  X. 

TABLE  No.  35. 

VALUE   OF   THE    CENSUS    APPORTIONMENT   ON    ENROLLMENT   AND    AVERAGE    DAILY 
ATTENDANCE   FOR   CERTAIN    INDIANA    COUNTIES    AND    CITIES. 

(Calculated  for  the  school  year  1903-04  from  tables  7a,  ?b,  Jc,  in  the  22d 
Bien.  Kept.  Supt.  Pub.  Instr.,  Ind.,  for  1903-04.  Calculated  on  the  basis 
of  the  school  census  of  April,  1904,  the  1903  census  returns  not  having 
been  published.) 


Counties. 

Adams 

Per  cent 
of  census, 
6-21  years 
enrolled  in 
county. 

60% 

Value  of  the  State  apportionment  of$2.qo  on 
enrollment  in 

County  as           Rural               Town                City 
a  whole.            schools.             schools.            schools. 

$4.21                $4.26               $3.67                $4.60 
6.04                  5.27                  3.72                  6.91  * 
3.92                   4.20                   3.22                   3.67 
3.49                   4.20                   2.96 

3.67              3.92                                 349 
3-54              3-82              2.55              3.12 
3.82              3.92             2.96             
3.63              3.82              2.64             3.26 
4.26             4.03             4.26  f 
6.04              5.92                                 6.30  % 
4-03              3-97             2.59             4.53 

Allen  

.  .  .    48% 

74% 

Bartholomew 

Benton.  
Blackford  

...  85% 
.   79% 

Boone 

82% 

Brown  
Carroll 

...   76% 
80% 

Marion  

.  .  .  6S% 

Vanderburg  

48% 

State  of  Indiana  

...  72% 

*  Third  largest  city,  Ft.  Wayne. 

t  Largest  city,  Indianapolis. 

\  Second  largest  city,  Evansville. 

The  low  value  of  the  apportionment  in  some  of  the  town  schools 
is  doubtless  due  to  the  presence  of  "  tuition  pupils  "  from  the 
rural  schools,  drawn  by  the  presence  of  a  small  high  school,  and 
who  serve  to  increase  the  percentage  of  enrollment  from  which 
these  values  are  calculated.  This  ought  also  to  increase  the  en- 
rollment in  the  county-seat  cities.  The  values  of  the  state  ap- 
portionment or  enrollment  are  seen  to  be  highest  for  the  cities  of 
Ft.  Wayne,  (Allen  County)  and  Evansville  (Vanderburg  County). 
This  is  due  to  their  low  percentage  of  census  enrolled. 

Similar  inequalities  could  be  shown  for  groups  of  counties  in 
any  state  using  the  census  basis  of  apportionment.  The  method 
is  not  one  that  will  give  even  or  just  results.  The  wide  varia- 
tions in  the  actual  value  of  the  census  apportionment  reveal  one 


I2O  School  Funds  and  their  Apportionment 

of  the  worst  defects  of  the  school-census  basis  for  the  appor- 
tionment of  school  funds.  Surely  this  is  not  using  the  income 
from  the  funds,  as  required  by  so  many  state  constitutions,  for 
the  equal  benefit  of  all  the  people  of  the  state. 

The  census  basis  gives  a  district  less  than  is  due  it  if  the  enumer- 
ator fails  to  list  all  the  children,  and  the  premium  placed  upon 
getting  every  name  on  the  list  offers  a  constant  temptation  to 
communities  to  "  pad  "  their  census  lists  so  that  the  "  census 
money  "  to  be  drawn  may  be  larger  both  in  total  amount  and  in 
per-capita  value  on  work  actually  done  by  the  schools.  This 
"  padding  of  the  census,"  though  not  often  resorted  to,  is  not  easy 
for  the  state  authorities  to  discover,  as  census  lists  are  seldom 
questioned.  Most  of  the  states  have  experienced  difficulty  in  this 
respect  at  some  time  in  their  history,  and  New  Jersey  was  finally 
led  to  abandon  its  census  entirely  in  1901  because  of  evident 
and  repeated  inaccuracies  in  the  school  census.16 

Where  private  schools  exist,  the  census  basis  of  apportionment 
is  defective  in  that  it  gives  money  to  communities  for  the  educa- 
tion of  children  who  do  not  attend  the  public  schools  and  for 
whom  the  public  schools  need  make  no  provision  whatever.  As 
private  schools  exist  chiefly  in  the  cities,  this  tends  to  give  the 
cities  other  advantages  which  work  against  equalization.  This 
alone  in  many  eastern  cities  more  than  offsets  the  effect  of  the 
high  census  age  on  which  the  country  districts  draw  "  census 
money."  The  State  of  Connecticut,  for  example,  makes  a  yearly 
grant  to  the  several  towns  of  $2.25  for  each  census  child,  4  to  16 
years  of  age,  in  the  town.17  Taking  the  ten  largest  cities  in 
Connecticut  and  calculating,  we  get  the  following : 

16  For  a  discussion  of  the  question  in  New  Jersey  and  the  difficulties 
experienced  there,  see  the  New  Jersey  State  School  Reports  from  1896  to 
1901.     Between  1891  and  1901  the  school  enrollment  increased  every  year, 
though  the  school  census  for  four  of  the  years  showed  a  decrease  from 
that  of  the  preceding  year.     1903  Report,  p.  xix. 

17  Conn.  General  Statutes,  Sec.  2257. 


The  School  Census  Basis  121 

TABLE  No.  36. 

PERCENTAGE   OF    CENSUS    IN    PRIVATE    SCHOOLS    IN    THE   TEN    LARGEST    CITIES    OF 

CONNECTICUT. 

(Calculated  from  data  given  in  the  statistical  tables  of  the  An.  Kept.  Conn. 
Bd.  Educ.,  1903,  for  the  school  year  1901-02.) 

,, .. .  Number  in  Percentage  of        Money  drawn  for 

private  schools.          town  census.         private  school pupits 

New  Haven 3,116  13%  $7,OIi 

Hartford 3,617  21%  8,136 

Bridgeport 3,273  18%  7,364 

Waterbury 2,220  16%  4,995 

Meriden 1,599  24%  3,597 

New  Britain 1,504  23%  3,384 

Norwalk 616  13%  1,386 

Danbury 1,165  25%  2,621 

Norwich 883  16%  1,987 

Stamford. 695  16%  1,564 


Total 18,688  $42,045 

On  the  other  hand  the  five  towns  in  Windham  County  (see 
Table  No.  7,  Ch.  IV),  having  the  lowest  valuation  per  teacher 
employed,  reported  a  total  of  but  one  pupil  in  private  schools, 
and  the  five  towns  in  Fairfield  County  (Table  No.  8,  Ch.  IV), 
having  the  lowest  valuation  per  teacher  employed,  reported  a 
total  of  but  ten  pupils  in  private  schools.  The  highest  percent- 
age was  two  per  cent.,  one  town  with  a  census  of  one  hundred 
and  ninety-nine  reporting  four  pupils  in  private  schools. 

The  examples  which  have  been  given  to  show  the  inequalities 
resulting  from  the  per-capita  on  census  basis  of  apportionment 
when  used  alone,  could  be  greatly  multiplied  in  number  if  neces- 
sary. Every  state  using  the  census  basis  of  apportionment  could 
furnish  plenty  of  additional  illustrations.  As  a  method  of  ap- 
portionment, used  alone,  it  is  unsatisfactory  and  unjust.  It  fails 
to  accomplish,  in  any  marked  degree,  that  equalization  of  bur- 
•dens  and  advantages  for  which  state  endowment  funds  and 
general  taxation  exist.  Its  further  use  is  not  to  be  encouraged, 
and  its  general  abandonment  as  a  basis  for  apportionment  would 
be  in  the  interests  of  justice.  The  school  census  itself,  in  a  re- 
vised and  improved  form,  we  should,  in  all  probability,  want  to 
retain,  but  its  use  would  be  as  a  basis  for  the  enforcement  of 
the  compulsory  attendance  laws  instead  of  the  apportionment  of 
school  funds. 


122  School  Funds  and  their  Apportionment 

Many  state  school  reports  make  no  returns  as  to  private 
school  pupils,  so  that  the  proportion  of  the  school  census  en- 
rolled in  private  schools  is  not  known.  In  many  cities  where 
the  enrollment  is  low,  the  number  enrolled  in  private  schools 
must  be  large.  In  Milwaukee,  for  example,  20,000  children 
between  7  and  14  years  attended  private  schools  18  for  thirty- 
two  weeks  during  1903-04  as  against  22,878  between  the  same 
ages  and  for  the  same  time  at  public  schools ;  in  Wayne  County, 
Michigan,  (Detroit),  the  estimated  number  of  pupils  in  private 
schools  19  during  1902-03  was  16,538  as  against  a  total  public 
school  enrollment  for  the  county  of  66,393  f°r  the  same  year; 
and  in  San  Francisco  20,978  children,  between  5  and  17  years 
of  age,  attended  private  schools 20  during  1903-04  as  against 
58,856  children  between  the  same  ages  in  public  schools.  For 
each  pupil  in  private  schools  the  different  states  paid  census 
money 21  at  the  rate  of  1.82^  for  Wisconsin,22  $2.70  for 
Michigan,23  and  $9.47  for  California,24  which  gave  the  two  cities 
and  the  county  the  following  incomes  from  "  census  money " 
on  pupils  whom  they  never  taught:  Milwaukee,  $36,500;  Wayne 
County  (Detroit),  Michigan,  $44,652.60;  and  San  Francisco, 
$194,161.66  for  the  years  indicated  above.25  The  Milwaukee 

™  Bien.  Kept.  Supt.  Pub.  Instr.,  Wis.,  1903-04,  Pt.  II,  p.  117.  The  Wis- 
consin statistical  tables  give  only  the  thirty-two  weeks'  enrollment  for 
private  schools. 

19  67th  An.  Kept.  Supt.  Pub.  Instr.,  Mich.,  1503,  pp.  174,  193. 

20  2 1st  Bien.  Kept.  Supt.  Pub.  Instr.,  Cal,  1903-04,  p.  152. 

21  This  calculation  neglects  those  who  came  to  the  city  merehy  to  attend 
the  private  school  and  who  live  elsewhere,  but  this  number  is  probably 
more  than  offset  by  the  number  of  census  pupils  who  attended  no  school 
during  the  year,  but  who  would  have  attended  a  private  school  had  they 
enrolled  in  any  school. 

22  From  Table  No.  24,  Ch.  IX. 

23  67th  An.  Rept.  Supt.  Pub.  Instr.,  Mich.,  1903,  p.  30. 

24  2ist  Bien.  Rept.  Supt.  Pub.  Instr.,  Cal.,  1903-04,  p.  197. 

26  The  new  California  apportionment  law  of  1905,  as  enacted  by  Senate 
Bill  No.  236,  changes  the  basis  for  the  State  apportionment  to  the  counties 
from  a  straight  census  basis  to  $250  for  every  seventy  "census  children" 
or  fraction  of  twenty  or  more,  and  the  balance  on  the  average  daily  attend- 
ance in  the  public  schools.  This  will  reduce  the  apportionment  to  San 
Francisco  somewhat,  though  the  city  will  still  receive  $75,000  a  year  on 
this  basis  for  pupils  taught  in  private  schools. 


The  School  Census  Basis  123 

figures  are  probably  only  about  half  the  actual  amount,  due  to 
their  not  including  children  below  seven  or  over  fourteen  years 
of  age,  or  any  children  attending  private  schools  less  than 
thirty-two  weeks. 

It  is  very  desirable,  from  a  national  point  of  view,  that  as 
large  a  percentage  as  possible  of  pupils  of  school  age  be  en- 
rolled in  the  public  schools.  It  would  be  a  great  misfortune 
if  our  public  schools,  especially  in  the  larger  cities,  were  to  be 
patronized  only  by  the  poorer  classes  of  society.  It  would  be 
a  grave  mistake,  however,  to  attempt  to  secure  a  high  enroll- 
ment in  the  public  schools  by  crushing  out  any  worthy  private 
school.  It  is  decidedly  for  the  best  interests  of  the  pubilc 
schools  that  there  should  be  a  friendly  competition  between  them 
and  all  good  private  schools.  But,  while  this  is  true,  com- 
munities should  nevertheless  make  every  effort  to  improve  the 
public  school  system  so  as  to  draw  a  larger  and  a  larger  per- 
centage of  all  pupils  into  the  public  schools,  and  strive  to  awaken 
a  strong  feeling  of  local  pride  in  the  public  school  system  which 
the  community  maintains.  To  this  end,  the  state,  in  giving  aid 
to  schools,  should  wisely  avoid  any  form  of  grant  which  tends 
to  place  local  effort  at  a  discount,  but  should  employ,  on  the 
contrary,  that  form  or  combination  of  forms  of  grant  which  will 
tend  to  stimulate  communities  to  make  the  best  efforts  within 
their  powers.  Judged  by  this  standard  the  census  method  is 
very  defective. 

The  census  basis  of  apportionment,  further,  has  no  educational 
significance  in  that  it  does  not  place  a  premium  on  any  effort 
that  makes  for  better  education  or  better  educational  conditions 
in  a  community.  Number  enrolled,  average  membership,  aver- 
age daily  attendance,  extension  of  the  amount  of  instruction  of- 
fered, quality  of  teachers,  addition  of  extra  teachers,  length  of 
term,  enforcement  of  compulsory  attendance  laws,  efforts  to 
make  the  public  schools  better  so  as  to  attract  pupils  away  from 
the  private  schools, — all  these  important  educational  incentives 
are  absolutely  ignored  when  aid  for  education  is  apportioned 
solely  on  the  per-capita  on  census  basis.  Communities  are  stimu- 
lated to  get  every  possible  name  on  the  census  list,  but  there 
the  stimulation  ends.  If  the  same  zeal  were  shown  in  getting 
these  children  into  the  schools  and  keeping  them  there  it  would 
be  very  commendable.  If  it  is  worth  while  for  the  state  to  give 


124  School  Funds  and  their  Apportionment 

aid  to  education  at  all,  then  the  state  ought  to  give  its  aid  in 
such  a  manner  and  under  such  conditions  as  will  produce  the 
best  result.  To  stimulate  a  community  to  educational  activity 
is  much  more  important  than  merely  decreasing  its  school  taxes ; 
the  aid  given  to  reduce  the  school  taxes  ought  to  be  used  as  a 
lever  to  get  as  much  from  the  community  itself  as  it  is  able  to  give. 

The  statistical  tables  given  in  the  school  reports  of  the  various 
states  frequently  contain  little  data  which  can  be  used  to  show 
the  exact  nature  of  existing  inequalities,  and  what  the  reports  do 
contain  generally  has  to  be  re-arranged  and  calculated  anew. 
Few  states  have  ever  collected  statistics  to  ascertain  the  result 
produced  by  the  aid  which  they  give.  Still,  with  the  data  now 
obtainable,  an  examination  will  show  the  inequalities  produced 
and  existing  under  the  census  method  of  apportionment,  and 
a  careful  study  of  specially  collected  statistical  data  for  any  state 
using  the  census  method  alone  would  yield  results  which  would 
not  only  surprise  most  educators  but  would  also  do  much  to 
produce  a  sentiment  favorable  to  a  change  to  a  better  and  more 
just  method  of  apportionment.  In  some  cases,  state  constitu- 
tions would  need  to  be  changed,  in  other  cases,  only  school 
laws,  and  in  all  cases  the  opposition  of  the  cities  would  have  to 
be  met  and  overcome  by  forcing  to  the  front  a  discussion  as  to 
what  is  the  real  purpose  of  state  aid.  The  census  method  of 
distribution  certainly  does  not  provide  for  "  a  general  and  uni- 
form system  of  free  common  schools  throughout  the  state." 
Until  this  can  be  accomplished,  or  some  new  form  of  relief 
established,  there  can  be  no  easing  of  the  burdens  of  school  taxa- 
tion to  many  small  and  poor  communities,  and  no  chance  to  make 
any  real  headway  in  the  direction  of  equalizing  the  advantages 
of  education  to  all. 

To  show  how  common  this  method  of  apportionment  is  we 
present  a  table  of  the  thirty-eight  states  and  territories  in  which 
the  method  is  used,  wholly  or  in  part,  singly  or  combined, 
classifying  the  states  by  groups,  and  arranging  the  groups  in 
somewhat  the  order  of  merit  of  the  plan  in  use. 


The  School  Census  Basis  125 

TABLE  No.  37- 

VARIETIES   OF   PER   CAPITA  ON    CENSUS   PLAN   OF   APPORTIONMENT   IN    USE. 

1.  A  State  tax,  kept  in  the  counties  where  paid,  and  apportioned  by  the 
counties  on  census.     Income  from  the  permanent  State  school  fund  appor- 
tioned to  the  counties  on  census. 

Tennessee. 

2.  From  the  State  to  the  county,  and  from  the  county  to  the  township 
or  district  on  census. 

/  *t  i  •  *"•'      Colorado,    *X  West  Virginia, 

Illinois,  Missouri, 

Kansas,    "  Oklahoma, 

Iowa,  Utah, 

Wisconsin,  Arkansas,     \^ 

North  Dakota,  Maine   (to  towns), 

Michigan,  New  Mexico, 

South  Dakota,  Montana, 

Ohio,  Texas. 

3.  From  the  State  to  the  county  on  census,  and  then  the  "  County  Sys- 
tem "  of  control  and  apportionment. 

Maryland,  Georgia, 

Louisiana,  Mississippi. 

Virginia, 

4.  From  the  State  to  the  county  on  census,  and  then  the  application  of  an 
equalizing  plan  in  the  apportionment  within  the  county.  „  '^z 


(a)  Where  an  equalization  between  townships  is  first  made,Aand  the 
balance  is  distributed  on  census. 

Indiana,  Alabama.     *^ 

(b)  Where  the  needs  of  the  small  school  are  recognized  in  making 
the  apportionment  on  census. 

Kentucky. 

(c)  Where  a  "district  quota"  is  first  set  aside  for  each  school  dis- 
trict, and  the  balance  then  apportioned  on  census. 

Oregon,  Wyoming, 

Idaho,  Nebraska. 

(d)  Where  a  "district  quota"  or  a  "teacher  quota"  is  first  set  aside. 

Nevada.     Teacher's  quota.     Balance  on  census. 
Arizona.     District  quota.     Balance  on  attendance. 

5.  Where  the  census  basis  is  only  one  of  two  or  more  bases  used  by  the 
State  in  making  the  apportionment. 

North  Carolina,  California, 

Pennsylvania,  Connecticut.    >&**-  c 

Rhode  Island,  ,-V  ."*'  / 

It  will  be  evident  from  the  preceding  discussion  that  the 
Tennessee  method  represents  the  lowest  position,  in  the  scale  of 
evolution,  of  any  state  of  the  series.  It  is  a  combination  of 
the  "  taxes  where  paid  "  and  the  census  method. 


126  School  Funds  and  their  Apportionment 

The  second  group  contains  states  employing  the  straight  census 
method  from  the  state  down  to  the  school  district,  which  results 
in  many  inequalities  and  gives  many  unjust  results.  The  addi- 
tion of  any  apportionment  derived  from  a  county  tax  also  in- 
creases these  inequalities,  as  does  the  presence  of  unequalized 
county  or  township  funds.  The  inequalities  in  the  township 
funds  were  shown  by  Table  No.  27  for  one  of  the  counties  of 
Missouri,  and  by  Table  No.  16,  Chapter  V,  for  certain  counties 
of  Missouri.  This  same  condition  is  found  in  every  state  where 
such  local  funds  exist,  and  could  be  shown  by  statistical  data 
wherever  this  is  available. 

Where  the  state  per-capita  apportionment  is  small,  as  in 
Kansas,  a  census  basis  apportionment  only  relieves  communities 
of  a  varying  small  portion  of  their  school  tax,  but  where  the 
apportionment  is  large  and  is  given  out  with  practically  no  re- 
quirements to  be  met  in  return  for  state  aid,  it  tends  to  en- 
courage communities  to  rely  entirely  on  the  state  and  county 
apportionment  for  all  support  and  to  reduce  salaries  or  term  or 
both  to  equal  the  amount  received.  In  Texas,  for  example,  the 
state  apportionment  is  equal,  on  an  average,  to  about  $6.00  per 
child  enrolled,  and  the  income  from  county  funds  brings  the 
average  up  to  over  $8.00,  yet  in  1899-1900  the  average  length 
of  term  was  only  108.2  days  26  and  Iby  1901-02  it  had  fallen  off 
to  101.9  days,  being  shorter  than  in  every  other  state  or  territory, 
except  Arkansas,  Florida,  Kentucky,  Mississippi,  North  Carolina, 
New  Mexico,  Oklahoma,  South  Carolina,  and  Tennessee.  Local 
support  averaged  for  1901-02  less  than  $2.00  per  child,  and  the 
average  salaries  per  year  of  teachers  were  lower  than  in  two- 
thirds  of  the  states  of  the  Union.  Yet  Texas  has  about  three 
times  the  largest  permanent  school  fund  of  any  state  in  the 
Union.  Commenting  on  these  figures  the  State  Superintendent 
of  Public  Instruction  for  Texas  says:27  "The  general  average 
length  of  term  for  the  year  1900-01,  including  independent 
(special  taxing)  districts,  was  a  little  less  than  five  and  one- 
third  months ;  and  the  average  in  common  school  districts  was 
only  four  and  nine-tenth  months.  Nevertheless,  there  has  been 
so  much  talk,  not  to  say  boasting,  of  the  munificent  permanent 

2*Repts,  U.  S.  Com.  Educ.,  Statistical  Introd. 

27  isth  Bien.  Kept.  Supt.  Pub.  Instr.,  Texas,  1900-02,  p.  6. 


The  School  Census  Basis  127 

school  fund  of  this  state  that  it  is  difficult  to  make  the  public 
realize  that  a  good  measure  of  local  support  is  indispensable  to 
our  system.  *  There  can  be  no  marked  general  advance  in  the 
educational  affairs  of  Texas  until  local  taxation  becomes  the  rule 
and  not  the  exception  throughout  the  countless  school  districts 
of  our  broad  land."  A  better  method  of  distributing  this  fund, 
coupled  with  a  penalty  of  forfeiture  of  state  funds  for  failure 
to  comply  with  the  requirements  laid  down  by  the  state,  would 
enable  Texas  to  demand  and  enforce  a  minimum  school  term  of 
seven  months  and  to  materially  increase  the  salaries  paid  to  the 
teachers  of  the  state. 

The  third  group  of  states  in  Table  No.  37  belongs  to  the  county 
system  in  the  South,  and,  if  properly  administered,  offers  many 
advantages  over  the  plan  of  the  states  of  the  second  group.  The 
chief  weakness  of  this  system  of  distribution  is  that,  in  the 
census  distribution  to  the  counties,  no  emphasis  is  placed  on 
the  educational  needs  of  the  various  counties  as  determined  by 
enrollment,  attendance,  or  number  of  teachers  needed.  All 
counties  share  alike  without  regard  to  effort  made.  The  system 
shares  in  the  many  defects  of  the  census  basis  of  apportionment 
Within  the  county  it  is  possible,  under  this  plan,  to  equalize 
opportunities  thoroughly,  though  probably  it  is  not  always  done. 
A  few  selections  from  the  School  Laws  of  Georgia  28  will  show 
the  possibilities  for  equalization  within  the  county,  under  this 
system : 

"  SEC.  12.  Each  and  every  County  in  the  State  shall  compose  one  school 
district,  and  be  confined  to  the  control  and  management  of  a  County 
Board  of  Education. 

"SEC.  18.  The  County  Boards  shall  lay  off  their  Counties  into  sub- 
districts,  in  each  of  which  sub-districts  they  shall  establish  one  common 
school  each  for  the  white  and  colored  races  where  the  population  of  the 
two  races  is  sufficient.  ...  In  any  sub-school  district  where  more  than 
one  school  is  demanded,  they  shall  establish  one  or  more  additional  schools. 
.  .  .  Said  Board  shall  have  full  power  to  make  such  changes  as  the  public 
necessities  may  require.  The  said  County  Boards  are  also  empowered  to 
employ  teachers  to  serve  in  the  schools  under  their  jurisdiction. 

"  SEC.  19.  The  County  Board  of  Education  shall  have  power  to  pur- 
chase, lease,  or  rent  school  sites;  to  build,  repair,  or  rent  school-houses; 
to  purchase  maps,  globes,  and  school  furniture;  and  to  make  all  other 

28  A  Compilation  of  the  Laws  relating  to  the  Common  School  System 
of  Ga.,  1903. 


128  School  Funds  and  their  Apportionment 

arrangements  of  this  kind  necessary  to  the  effective  operation  of  the 
schools.  .  .  .  They  shall  make  arrangements  for  the  instruction  of  the  chil- 
dren of  the  white  and  colored  races  in  separate  schools.  They  shall,  as 
far  as  practicable,  provide  the  same  facilities  for  both  races  in  respect  to 
attainments  and  abilities  of  teachers  and  length  of  term.  .  .  .  They  shall 
have  full  power  and  authority  to  define  and  regulate  the  length  of  the  public 
school  terms  of  their  respective  Counties." 

The  fourth  and  fifth  groups  of  states  in  Table  No.  37  repre- 
sent definite  attempts  to  provide  a  plan  for  the  distribution  of 
funds  which  will  equalize  both  the  burdens  and  the  advantages 
of  education.  In  the  fourth  group  the  state  still  retains  the 
census  method,29  with  all  its  inequalities  in  the  distribution  to 
the  counties,  but  has  tried  to  overcome  these  inequalities,  in  a 
greater  or  less  degree,  in  providing  for  the  distribution  within 
the  counties.  An  interesting  point  in  this  connection  is  that  in 
the  three  states  of  this  group,  the  constitutions  of  which  require  a 
census  distribution,  each  state  has,  in  one  form  or  another,  broken 
away  from  a  strict  interpretation  of  the  constitutional  require- 
ment in  order  to  establish  a  better  system  of  distribution. 

In  Oregon  the  state  constitution  30  requires  a  per-capita  on 
census  distribution  to  the  counties,  but  is  fortunately  silent  as 
to  how  the  counties  shall  distribute  the  fund  after  they  receive 
it,  and  the  Legislature  has  taken  advantage  of  this  silence  to 
enact  a  better  county  distributive  law.81 

In  both  Kentucky  32  and  Wyoming  33  the  constitutions  require 
a  per-capita  on  census  distribution  of  the  state  fund  to  the 
counties  and  thence  to  the  districts.  In  Kentucky  the  Legisla- 
ture has  interpreted  this  provision  somewhat  liberally  by  pro- 
viding that  no  district  shall  be  considered  as  having  less  than 
forty-five  census  children  34  in  making  the  state  apportionment. 

29  By  a  law   passed   at  the   1905  session  of  the  California  Legislature, 
Senate  Bill  No.  236,  amending  section  1532  of  the  Political  Code,  California 
practically  changes  place  from  the  fourth  to  the  fifth  group  of  states. 

30  Constitution  of  Oregon,  Art.  IX,  Sec.  4. 

81  School  Laws  of  Oregon,  as  compiled  and  published  by  authority  of 
Senate  Joint  Resolution  No.  6  of  1903,  Art.  Ill,  Sec.  20,  div.  3. 

82  Constitution  of  Kentucky,  Sec.  186. 

83  Constitution  of  Wyoming,  Art.  VII,  Sec.  8. 

84  The  Common  School  Laws  of  the  Commonwealth  of  Ky.,  1904,  Art.  I, 
Sec.  2. 


The  School  Census  Basis  129 

In  Wyoming,  in  providing  for  the  distribution  of  the  county 
school  tax,  the  Legislature  has  provided  that  a  definite  portion 
for  each  district  shall  be  set  aside  before  apportioning  the  re- 
mainder on  census.35  The  efforts  at  equalization  within  the 
county,  to  counteract  the  bad  effects  of  the  census  method  of 
apportionment,  extend  from  the  recently  enacted  law  in  Indiana, 
on  the  one  hand,  which  requires  an  equalization  of  the  township 
1 6th  section  funds  36  before  making  the  county  apportionment, 
and  then  the  balance  on  census,  to  the  Arizona  and  California 
plans,37  on  the  other  hand,  which  make  the  district  or  the  teacher" 
the  central  factor  in  the  county  apportionment. 

In  the  fifth  group  of  Table  No.  37,  the  state  has  attempted  to 
partially  equalize  between  districts  in  making  the  state  appor- 
tionment, while  still,  in  part,  retaining  the  census  basis  of 
apportionment. 

35  Before  1903   this   remainder  was   apportioned  on  attendance,   but  in 
1903  it  was  changed  to  a  census  'basis.     Wyo.  Ses.  Laws  of  1895,  Ch.  44, 
Sec.  i,  as  amended  by  Wyo.  Ses.  Laws  of  1903,  Ch.  91,  Sec.  6. 

36  Rev.  Stat.  Ind.  1901,  Sec.  5973.     For  directions  as  to  the  making  of 
this  equalized  apportionment  see  the  School  Law  of  Indiana,  with  Annota- 
tions, revision  of  1903,  pp.  163-164. 

87  See  Chapter  XL 


CHAPTER  X 
THE  ENROLLMENT  AND  AVERAGE  MEMBERSHIP  BASES 

IN  the  last  chapter  we  pointed  out,  among  the  other  defects 
of  the  census  basis  of  apportionment,  that  it  offered  no  premium 
whatever  to  a  community  to  make  any  effort  to  secure  a  large 
enrollment  or  attendance.  There  is  a  very  definite  premium  on 
a  large  census  list,  but  the  smaller  the  percentage  of  the  so-called 
"  scholastic  population  "  which  enrolls  or  attends,  the  larger  the 
actual  per-capita  value  of  the  state  apportionment  received.  In 
tables  No.  31-35,  we  showed  the  actual  value  of  the  apportionment 
on  enrollment  and  attendance  for  a  number  of  counties  and 
cities  in  Wisconsin,  Kansas,  Missouri,  California,  and  Indiana. 
To  remedy  this  and  other  defects  of  the  census  method  and  to 
place  a  premium  upon  educational  efforts  rather  than  the  opposite, 
a  number  of  different  plans  have  been  tried  by  various  states. 
We  shall  consider  these  in  order.  The  first  advance  in  this 
direction  is  the  use  of  actual  enrollment  in  the  school  as  a  basis. 

THE    ENROLLMENT    BASIS. 

It  will  be  recalled  from  the  preceding  chapter  that  the  per- 
centage of  the  school  census  enrolled  in  the  schools  varied  greatly 
for  the  groups  of  counties  studied,  in  general  being  higher  in  the 
more  rural  counties  and  lower  in  the  cities  and  in  the  counties 
containing  cities.  This  consequently  gave  the  cities,  on  a  census 
basis  of  distribution,  a  larger  sum  of  money  per  child  actually 
provided  for  than  the  rural  counties  received.  This  may  be 
shown  by  collecting,  into  a  comparative  table,  selected  data  for 
the  different  groups  of  counties  previously  studied,  calculating, 
for  each  state,  the  relation  of  enrollment  to  census  for  the  two 
counties  of  the  eight  which  contain  the  two  largest  cities,  and 
calculating  similarly  for  each  state  as  a  whole  and  for  the  four 
largest  cities  in  each.  In  doing  so  we  get  the  following  com- 
parative table : 

(130) 


The  Enrollment  Basis  131 

TABLE  No.  38. 

PERCENTAGE   OF   CENSUS    ENROLLED.1 

(Calculated  for  the  school  year  1903-04  from  statistical  data  given  in  the 

Repts.  of  the  Supts.  Pub.  Instr.  of  the  respective  states,  and  in  part 

collected  from  tables  given  in  the  preceding  chapter.) 

Item.                                Wis.  Kan.  Mo.  Ind. 

4-20  Yrs.  5-21  Yrs.  6-20  Yrs.  6-21  Yrs. 
County  of   eight   having   largest 
city — 

County  as  a  whole 51%  48%  78%  48% 

County,  city  omitted 48%  45%  81%  57% 

City  alone 57%  54%  69%  42% 

County    having    second    largest 
city — 

County  as  a  whole 65%  45%  80%  74% 

County,  city  omitted 72%  40%  82%  73% 

City  alone 61%  53%  78%  80% 

Two  counties  having  no  cities  or 
large  towns — 

First  county 77%  86%  100%  83% 

Second  county 67%  90%  90%  76% 

Four  largest  cities — 

Largest 41%  58%  48%              67% 

Second 53%  63%  46%              46% 

Third 52%  66%  27%              42% 

Fourth 49%  54%  79% 


State  as  a  whole 61%  74%              72% 

City  schools 52%                *  59%  f           64% 

Rural  and  town  schools 65%              60%  88%              75% 

*  Sufficient  data  for  calculation  lacking. 

t  In  Missouri,  town  schools  are  included  with  city  schools. 

1  The  counties  and  cities  used  in  this  table  are,  in  the  order  used,  the 
following : 

WISCONSIN.             KANSAS.                   MISSOURI.  INDIANA. 

Brown,                     Bourbon,                  Audrain,  Allen, 

Ashland,                  Atchison,                 Adair,  Bartholomew, 

Adams,                     Barber,                     Barry,  Benton, 

Buffalo,                    Chautauqua,            Bates,  Brown, 

Milwaukee,              Kansas  City,            St.  Louis,  Indianapolis, 

Racine,                     Topeka,                    Kansas  City,  Evansville, 

La  Crosse,               Wichita,                   St.  Joseph,  Fort  Wayne, 

Oshkosh.                  Fort  Scott.               Springfield.  Terre  Haute. 


132  School  Funds  and  their  Apportionment 

This  table  seems  to  indicate  that  the  percentage  of  school  popu- 
lation enrolled  in  the  public  schools  in  the  larger  cities  is,  in  gen- 
eral, lower  than  in  the  towns  and  rural  parts  of  the  state.  The 
private  school  enrollment  is,  on  the  other  hand,  greatest  in  the 
cities,  and  this  probably  more  than  makes  up  for  the  deficit  in 
public  school  enrollment.  Just  how  large  the  private  school  en- 
rollment is  for  the  cities  in  the  above  table  we  do  not  know,  as 
the  various  state  reports  for  these  states  furnish  no  complete 
data.  All  that  is  available  is  that  for  the  four  cities  of  Wis- 
consin, in  the  order  given  above,  of  all  children  between  the  ages 
of  7  and  14  years  who  attended  any  school  for  thirty-two 
weeks  during  1903-04,  45%  in  Milwaukee;  20%  in  Racine; 
29%  in  La  Crosse ;  and  34%  in  Oshkosh  were  in  private  schools ; 
and  for  the  largest  city  in  California  (San  Francisco),  the  per- 
centage of  total  census  in  private  schools  was  21.6%  in  1903-04. 
Further  than  this  the  State  School  Reports  give  no  data  from 
which  calculations  can  be  made. 

The  statistical  tables  in  the  Indiana  State  School  Reports  con- 
tain data  which  enable  us  to  analyze  the  enrollment  for  that  state 
still  further,  by  distinguishing  between  the  percentage  of  census 
enrolled  in  the  rural  schools,  in  the  town  schools,  and  in  the  city 
schools.  Making  this  analysis  for  the  first  ten  counties  of  the 
State,  in  alphabetical  order,  and  adding  on  for  comparison  the 
two  counties  containing  the  two  largest  cities  in  the  State, 
we  get  the  next  table : 


The  Enrollment  Basis  133 

TABLE  No.  39. 

PERCENTAGE   OF   CENSUS    ENROLLED   IN    CERTAIN    INDIANA    COUNTIES. 

(Calculated  for  the  year  1903-04,  from  statistical  tables  ja,  ?b,  70,  of  the 
22d  Bien.  Rept.  Supt.  Pub.  Instr.,  Ind.,  for  1903-04.  This  calculation  is 
based  on  the  census  of  April,  1004,  the  school  census  of  1903  not  having 
been  published. 

Percentage  of  census,  b-zi  years,  enrolled. 

Counties.  In  all  In  rural  In  town  In  city 

schools.  schools.  schools.  schooli. 

Adams 69%  68%  79%  63% 

Allen 48%  55%  78%  42%  * 

Bartholomew 74%  69%  90%  79% 

Benton 83%  69%  98%  o% 

Blackford 79%  74%  o%  83% 

Boone 82%  76%  113%  93% 

Brown 76%  74%  98%  o% 

Carroll 80%  76%  110%  89% 

Cass 70%  75%  82%  65% 

Clark 69%  72%  94%  55% 

Marion 68%  72%  o%  68%  t 

Vanderburg 48%  49%  o%  46%  t 

State  average 72%  73%  112%  64% 

*  Third  largest  city  in  the  State,  Ft.  Wayne. 

t  Largest  city  in  the  State,  Indianapolis. 

t  Second  largest  city  in  the  State,  Evansville. 

The  percentage  of  enrollment  here  is  nearly  always  highest 
in  the  towns.  This  is  undoubtedly  due  in  part  to  the  presence 
of  older  "  tuition  pupils  "  from  the  rural-school  districts,  and 
to  the  stimulus  given  to  school  enrollment  by  the  presence  of  a 
town  high  school.  In  six  of  the  ten  counties  having  cities,  the 
enrollment  in  the  city  schools  is  lower  than  the  average  for  the 
county,  and  also  lower  than  the  average  for  the  town  or  the 
country  schools.  The  average  for  Allen  County  is  particularly 
low,  due  to  the  very  low  enrollment  of  the  schools  of  Ft.  Wayne. 
Vanderburg  County,  with  the  city  of  Evansville,  is  also  very 
low  throughout.  Marion  County,  containing  the  city  of  Indian- 
apolis, shows  a  half  greater  percentage  of  enrollment  than 
either  of  the  large  cities  and  is  rather  an  exception  among  the 
large  cities  of  the  country. 

A  comparison  of  the  two  preceding  tables  shows  the  great 
variability  in  the  percentage  of  census  enrolled  in  the  different 
counties  and  cities  of  the  same  state,  and  serves  further  to  em- 


134  School  Funds  and  their  Apportionment 

phasize  the  bad  features  of  the  census  method  of  distributing 
funds.  \State  money  is  given  to  all  on  the  same  basis  without 
regard  to  what  they  do.  As  a  basis  for  distribution,  enrollment 
would  be  far  more  just.  This  may  be  seen  if  we  translate  the 
percentages  of  enrollment  as  given  in  Table  No.  31-35,  Chapter  X, 
into  relative  values,  by  calculating  what  every  dollar  of  state 
apportionment  on  the  basis  of  census  would  be  worth  to  the 
counties  and  cities  on  the  basis  of  total  enrollment.  Doing  this 
and  arranging  the  values  in  a  comparative  table,  we  get  the 
following : 

TABLE  No.  40. 

WHAT   $I.OO  OF   CENSUS    APPORTIONMENT   IS    WORTH    ON    TOTAL  ENROLLMENT. 

(Calculated  for  the  school  year  1903-04  from  the  percentages  given  in 
Tables  No.  31-35  and  No.  38.) 

Counties,  in  alphabetical        Wis.  Kan.  Mo.  Col.  Ind. 

order,  and  cities. 
ist $1.30          $1.49          $1.25          $1.43          $1.45 

2d 54  2.22  .97  1.28  2.08 

3d 35  -16  1.05  1.28  1.35 

4th 35  .54  1.28  1.17  1.20 

5th 96  2.08  i.oo  .1.32  1.26 

6th 49  .19  1.07  1.20  1.22 

7th 43  .11  i. ii  1. 15  1.32 

8th 2.00  .16  1.29  1.28  1.25 

Largest  city 2.44  .73  2.08  1.56  1.47 

Second  largest  city 1.89  .59  2.17  *  2.17 

Third  largest  city 1.92  .52  3.59  2.38 

*  Data  for  calculation  lacking. 

It  is  evident  that  a  distribution  of  state  aid  on  a  basis  of  en- 
rollment instead  of  school  census  would  approach  much  more 
nearly  to  actual  needs  and  efforts,  at  least  so  far  as  the  larger 
places  are  concerned,  and  be  far  more  just.  Under  the  census 
basis  Ft.  Wayne,  for  example,  received  from  the  State  $6.91  for 
every  pupil  enrolled  while  Indianapolis  received 2  but  $4.26. 
Similarly  the  city  of  Milwaukee  received  $4.24  for  each  pupil  en- 
rolled while  the  average  for  the  schools  of  Adams  County  was  8 
but  $2.37.  Likewise  San  Francisco  received  $14.79  f°r 

2  From  Table  No.  35,  Chapter  IX. 

3  From  Table  No.  31,  Chapter  IX. 


The  Enrollment  Basis  135 

pupil  enrolled  while  the  average  for  each  pupil  enrolled  received 
by  Contra  Costa  County  was  4  but  $10.88.  Under  an  enroll- 
ment basis  this  inequality  would  end,  and  each  community  would 
receive  exactly  the  same  amount  for  every  pupil  enrolled,  and 
nothing  whatever  for  any  pupil  not  enrolled. 

Enrollment,  though,  is  open  to  certain  serious  objections,  as  a 
basis  for  the  distribution  of  state  aid.  If  mere  enrollment  for 
a  day  or  a  few  days  is  all  that  is  needed  to  secure  state  money 
on  the  pupil,  not  only  could  all  transient  enrollments  be  counted, 
but  such  a  method  would  offer  an  incentive  to  communities  to  get 
as  many  pupils  as  possible  enrolled,  without  offering  any  in- 
centive to  keep  them  in  attendance.  The  temptations  to  swell 
the  enrollment  artificially  would  exceed  the  temptations  to  "  pad  " 
the  school  census.  If  enrollment  were  to  be  used  as  a  basis  for 
the  distribution  of  funds,  the  state  ought  to  require  some  definite 
minimum  period  of  enrollment,  and  any  limit  laid  down  by  law 
would  probably  be  low  rather  than  high. 

In  the  matter  of  transfers  from  school  to  school,  the  enroll- 
ment basis  would  be  no  improvement  over  the  census  basis. 
Either  communities  would  refuse  to  receive  transferred  pupils 
without  compensation,  or  the  state  would  be  obliged  to  pay  for 
the  same  pupils  in  two  or  three  different  school  districts.  The 
enrollment  basis,  like  the  census  basis,  offers  no  practicable 
means  for  the  abolition  of  tuition  charges  between  districts. 

In  the  case  of  the  small  country  districts,  an  enrollment 
basis  would  not  prove  an  additional  hardship,  as  might  at  first 
sight  appear.  So  long  as  a  school  had  the  same  percentage 
of  the  census  enrolled  as  the  state  average  it  would  make  no 
difference  at  all,  because  the  change  from  the  larger  number  of 
census  children  to  the  smaller  number  of  children  enrolled  would 
decrease  the  size  of  the  divisor  and  proportionately  increase  the 
size  of  the  quotient  in  determining  the  per-capita  amount  to  be 
apportioned  by  the  state.  If  the  country  schools  could  rise  above 
the  state  average,  as  Table  No.  38  seems  to  indicate  that  they, 
in  general,  do,  then  the  country  schools  would  gain  instead  of 
lose  in  a  change  from  a  census  to  an  enrollment  basis. 

This  may  be  illustrated  quite  well  by  the  case  of  Wisconsin. 
Dividing  the  total  amount  of  money  apportioned  for  1903-04  by 
the  number  of  census  children  gives  $1.82^  per  census  child,  the 

4  From  Table  No.  34,  Chapter  IX. 


136  School  Funds  and  their  Apportionment 

amount  of  the  per-capita  on  census  apportionment  for  that 
year,  as  stated  in  Table  No.  24,  Chapter  IX.  But  dividing  the 
same  sum  by  the  total  school  enrollment  for  the  same  period 
gives  $2.99  per-capita  for  an  apportionment  based  on  total  en- 
rollment. A  requirement  of  forty  days  of  enrollment  before 
being  allowed  to  count  for  the  state  apportionment  would  further 
increase  the  per-capita  apportionment  on  enrollment.  In  Minne- 
sota, where  statistics  for  a  forty-day  enrollment  exist,  about 
fifteen  per  cent,  of  the  total  state  enrollment  has  for  some  years 
failed  to  remain  in  school  forty  days.5  Assuming  that  Wis- 
consin required  a  forty  day  enrollment  and  that  the  same  per- 
centage failed  to  remain  in  school  for  forty  days  as  in  the  case 
of  Minnesota,  the  per-capita  apportionment,  on  a  forty  day 
enrollment,  would  become  $3.52  in  consequence.  There  being 
:  only  so  much  money  to  go  around,  the  smaller  the  number  on 
which  it  is  apportioned,  the  larger  the  per-capita  apportionment. 
The  product  of  the  two  is  always  the  same. 

This  simple  result  is  contrary  to  the  opinion  commonly  held 
by  school  men.  The  counting  for  census  money  of  all  children 
too  young  or  too  old  to  attend  the  small  country  school  has 
commonly  been  considered  a  great  gain  to  the  small  districts 
and  one  of  the  marked  advantages  of  the  census  basis  of  ap- 
portioning funds.  This  is  not  true,  as  has  been  just  shown. 
The  small  country  districts  really  lose,  because  their  enrollment 
on  census  is  usually  higher  than  is  the  case  in  the  cities.  On  a 
census  basis  of  apportionment,  the  community  which  does  not 
have  its  children  in  schools  is  the  gainer;  on  an  enrollment  basis 
the  reverse  would  be  true.  A  change  to  an  enrollment  basis  with 
a  minimum  enrollment  period  then  would  seem  to  be  in  the 
interests  of  justice  and  education,  and  would  be  a  step  in  the  di- 
rection of  the  equalization  of  burdens  and  advantages.  Instead 
of  paying  communities  in  proportion  to  the  number  of  children 
they  have  in  their  so-called  "  scholastic  population,"  the  state 
would  pay  on  the  number  of  that  population  who  really  attended 
a  school,  and  a  public  school  at  that.  The  result  of  such  a 
change  would  spur  many  communities  to  secure  a  larger  enroll- 
ment, and  to  do  something  toward  securing  a  better  enforce- 
ment of  the  compulsory  attendance  laws.  The  census  basis  has 

6  See  Table  No.  42,  further  on  in  this  chapter. 


The  Enrollment  Basis  137 

required  no  such  effort  and  many  communities  have  grown  very 
negligent  in  this  respect. 

Two  states  use  enrollment  as  a  basis  for  apportioning  school 
funds,  New  Hampshire  and  Minnesota.  In  New  Hampshire  the 
minimum  period  has  been  fixed  by  law  at  ten  days,6  while  in 
Minnesota  it  has  been  fixed  at  forty  days.7  South  Carolina  also 
uses  total  enrollment  as  a  basis  for  apportioning  any  surplus 
money  that  may  remain  from  the  net  income  from  the  sale  of 
liquors  under  the  dispensary  law,  after  equalizing  the  deficiencies 
in  the  various  counties  and  deducting  $5,000  for  maintaining 
institutes.8  The  statistics  given  in  the  New  Hampshire  Reports 
do  not  tell  how  many  pupils  were  enrolled  for  less  than  ten 
days,  but  a  comparison  of  the  number  attending  ten  days  with 
the  number  of  children,  5-16  years  of  age,  enumerated  by  the 
truant  officers  (census),  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  number  in 
average  membership  (average  number  belonging)  on  the  other, 
will  reveal  something  of  the  value  of  the  two  weeks'  enrollment 
as  a  basis  for  apportioning  funds.  Taking  the  first  county  in 
the  State,  in  alphabetical  order,  and  calculating  the  percentages 
for  each  town  from  the  data  given  9  for  the  school  year  1901-02, 
we  get  the  following  table: 

6  "  The  State  Treasurer  shaill  assign  and  distribute,  in  November  of  each 
year,  the  literary  fund  among  the  towns  and  places  in  proportion  to  the 
number  of  scholars,  not  less  than  five  years  of  age,  who  shall,  by  the  last 
reports  of  the  school  boards  returned  to  the  Superintendent  of  Public  In- 
struction,  appear  to  have  attended  the  public  'school  in  such  towns  and 
places  not  less  than  two  weeks  within  that  year."     New  Hamp.  Pub.  Stat., 
Ch.  88,  Sec.  10. 

7  "  The  State  Superintendent  of  Public  Instruction  shall  make  an  appor- 
tionment of   the    available    current  school    funds    in    the    State   treasury, 
among  the  several  counties  of  the  State,  on  the  first  Monday  in  March 
and  October  of  each  year,  in  proportion  to  the  number  of  scholars  between 
the  ages  of  five  and  twenty-one  years  who  have  been  enrolled  and  have 
been  in  attendance  forty  days  in  the  public  schools,  that  have  had  at  least 
five  months  of  term  within  the  year,  by  a  qualified  teacher,  and  have  re- 
ported according  to  law."     Rev.  Stat.  Minn.,  1894,  Sec.  3759. 

8  "  And  if  there  shall  be  a  surplus  remaining  of  such  net  income,  after 
such  deficiencies  have  been  equalized,  it  shall  be  devoted  to  public  school 
purposes,  and  be  apportioned  among  the  counties  in  proportion  to  the  en- 
rollment in  the  public  schools,  as  shall  appear  by  the  Report  of  the  State 
Superintendent    of    Education    for    the    next    preceding    scholastic    year." 
Code  of  Laws  of  S.  Car.,  1902,  Sec.  1235. 

9  Rept.  Supt.  Pub.  Instr.  for  New  Hamp.,  1001-02.  statistical  tables. 


138  School  Funds  and  their  Apportionment 

TABLE  No.  41. 

CENSUS,    ENROLLMENT,    AND    ATTENDANCE    IN    BELKNAP    COUNTY,    NEW 
HAMPSHIRE. 

(Calculated  for  the  school  year  1901-02  from  data  in  the  Bien.  Rept.  Supt. 
Pub.  Instr.,  New  Hanip.,  1901-02,  p.  204.) 

Census,  Attended          Per  cent  of    Per  cent  of  two     Per  cent  of 

Towns  J-/6  two  census  in        weeks'  enroll-       two  weeks' 

years.  weeks.  Att.for       ment  in  average     enrollment 

two  weeks.       membership.      inAv.Dy.Att* 

Alton 181  215  119%  91%  83% 

Barnstead 172  185  107%  84%  75% 

Belmont 235  231  98%  77%  68% 

Center  Harbor. ...  80  101  126%  75%  65% 

Gilford 98  100  102%  86%  79% 

Gilmanton 213  220  103%.  98%  90% 

Laconia 1,435  1,448  101%,  78%  74% 

Meredith 214  280  131%  98%  89% 

New  Hampton. ...  no  145  132%  90%  77% 

Sanbornton 154  179  116%  77%  66% 

Tilton 371  413  111%  94%  84% 

Belknap  County . .  3,263  3,517  108%  85%  78% 

It  will  be  noticed  that  the  percentage  of  census  enrolled  for 
two  weeks  varies  greatly,  but  is  nowhere  less  than  98%.  It  may 
be  that  the  census  was  not  carefully  taken  and  is  not  complete; 
but  if  it  is  complete  then  this  county  has  a  remarkable  record 
of  enrollment.  Half  of  the  other  counties  of  the  state,  however, 
show  similar  records.  The  averages  for  the  different  counties  as 
Wholes  being  as  following:  10 

Belknap 108%  Hillsborough 75% 

Carroll 103%  Merrimack 105% 

Cheshire ;  103%  Rockingham 

Coos 81  %  Strafford 

Grafton 109%  Sullivan 106% 

State  average 93% 

The  column  in  the  above  table  which  gives  the  percentage  of 
enrollment  for  two  weeks  in  average  membership  during  the 
school  year  shows  quite  large  variations,  two  of  the  towns  being 
able  to  keep  an  average  membership  of  98%  of  the  total  enroll- 
ment, while  four  towns  were  hardly  able  to  keep  an  average 

10  Calculated  from  data  in  the  Bien.  Rept.  Supt.  Pub.  Instr.,  N.  Hamp., 
1001-02. 


The  Enrollment  Basis  139 

membership  of  three-fourths  of  the  number  enrolled.  The  per- 
centage of  the  enrollment  in  average  daily  attendance  shows 
further  variations,  three  towns  showing  a  term  average  of  less 
than  seven  pupils  present  each  day  out  of  every  ten  enrolled. 
The  town  having  the  highest  percentage  of  census  enrolled 
(Center  Harbor)  had  the  lowest  percentage  of  that  enrollment 
in  average  membership  or  in  average  daily  attendance.  Yet 
under  the  per-capita  on  enrollment  basis  each  town  shared  alike 
for  every  one  hundred  pupils  enrolled,  though  the  average  num- 
ber belonging  varied  from  seventy-five  to  ninety-eight,  and  the 
average  number  in  daily  attendance  varied  from  sixty-five  to 
ninety.  Other  New  Hampshire  counties  show  similar  results. 

The  school  statistics  for  the  State  of  Minnesota  give  exact  data 
as  to  the  total  enrollment  and  the  enrollment  for  the  minimum 
period  of  forty  days  required  before  such  enrollment  can  be 
used  as  a  basis  for  receiving  state  funds.  The  forty-day  en- 
rollment period  in  Minnesota  is  a  decided  advance,  from  a 
theoretical  point  of  view,  over  the  ten-day  period  of  New 
Hampshire,  because  it  puts  a  premium  on  communities  making 
an  effort  to  keep  pupils  in  school  long  enough  to  probably  get 
them  interested  in  the  school,  and  because  the  required  period 
is  long  enough  to  discourage  communities  from  trying  to  in- 
crease the  enrollment  artificially  for  a  short  minimum  period, 
merely  to  be  able  to  draw  more  state  money. 

The  figures  as  to  enrollment  for  the  State  of  Minnesota  as  a 
whole,  during  the  past  five  years,  have  been  as  follows : 

TABLE  No.  42. 

TOTAL   AND   FORTY-DAY    ENROLLMENT   IN    MINNESOTA    COMPARED. 

(From  statistical  data  given  in  the  I2th  and  131 h  Bien.  Rcpts.  of  the  Supt. 
Pub.  Instr.,  Minn.) 

1900             1901  1902             1903 

Total    enrollment 399-207        403,041  414,671 

No.  attending  40  days  or  more..  .  341,181         341,441  353,6i2 

No.  attending  less  than  40  days..     58,026          61,600  61,059 
Percentage  attending  less  than  40 

days 14.5%           15-3%  147% 

Analyzing  the  returns  for  the  first  eight  counties  in  the  State, 
as  arranged  in  alphabetical  order,  and  comparing  these  with  the 
two  counties  having  the  two  largest  cities  and  with  the  average 


140  School  Funds  and  their  Apportionment 

for  the  State  as  a  whole,  we  get,  by  calculating  the  percentages, 
the  following  results : 

TABLE  No.  43. 

TOTAL    ENROLLMENT    AND   FORTY-DAY   ENROLLMENT    COMPARED    FOR    CERTAIN 
MINNESOTA   COUNTIES. 

(Calculated  from  Table  No.  IV,  p.  126,  of  the  izth  Bien.  Rept.  Supt.  Pub. 
Instr.,  Minn.,  1901-02.) 

Percentage  of  enrollment  Percentage  of  enrollment  not 

entitled  to  apportionment.  entitled  to  apportionment. 
Counties. 

Ind.  and  Sp.           Com.  Sch.  Ind.  and  Sp.         Com.  Sch. 

districts.              districts.  districts.             districts. 

Aitkin 93%  78%  7%  22% 

Anoka 93%  84%  7%  16% 

Becker 89%  74%  11%  26% 

Beltrami 83%  76%  17%  24% 

Benton 84%  83%  16%  17% 

Big  Stone 86%  76%  14% 

Blue  Earth 93%  82%  7% 

Brown 91%  86%  9%  14% 

Hennepin* 94%  87%  6%  13% 

Ramsey  f 91%  87%  9%  13% 

State  average 92%  81%  8%  19% 

*  Includes  the  city  of  Minneapolis. 
t  Includes  the  city  of  St.  Paul. 

A  similar  calculation  for  all  the  eighty-two  counties  of  the 
State  shows  a  similar  result.  The  independent  and  special  school 
districts  in  more  than  one-half  of  the  counties  averaged  a  per- 
centage of  enrollment  of  over  ninety  per  cent,  entitled  to  appor- 
tionment, while  in  only  one  county  did  the  common  school  dis- 
tricts reach  an  average  of  ninety  per  cent,  and  a  number  were 
below  seventy-five  per  cent. 

It  is  very  evident  from  the  above  table  that  the  towns  and 
cities  of  Minnesota  are  able  to  hold  a  much  larger  percentage 
of  their  enrollment  for  forty  days  than  the  country  districts. 
This  is  rather  surprising,  as  the  shifting  population  is  much 
larger  in  the  cities,  and  the  minimum  time  required  is  so  small 
that  one  would  suppose  that  in  the  country  districts  each  pupil 
who  enrolled  would-be  able  to  attend  at  least  forty  days  during 
the  entire  term,  which  in  these  districts  varied,  during  1901-02, 
from  one  hundred  and  twenty  to  one  hundred  and  sixty  days, 
the  average  being  one  hundred  and  thirty-eight  days. 

This  may  be  compensated  for,  in  part,  by  the  country  districts 


The  Enrollment  Basis  141 

enrolling  a  larger  percentage  of  the  children  5-21  years  of  age 
than  do  the  cities,  as  was  the  case  in  other  states,  but  this  can- 
not be  determined  for  Minnesota  because  the  State  has  no 
published  school  census.  If  this  is  true,  the  country  districts  could 
lose  twenty  per  cent,  of  their  enrollment  to  the  cities'  ten  per  cent., 
and  still  draw  state  money  on  a  larger  percentage  of  the  total 
school  census  than  the  cities.  However  that  may  be,  the 
cities  are  about  ten  per  cent,  more  successful  in  keeping  for 
forty  days  those  who  enroll  in  their  schools,  and  hence  deserve 
the  additional  premium  which  they  receive  for  it. 

The  figures  for  New  Hampshire  and  Minnesota  indicate  a 
marked  educational  advantage  of  the  enrollment  basis  over  the 
census  basis  of  apportionment,  in  that  the  enrollment  basis  places 
a  premium  on  communities  making  an  effort  to  get  pupils  into 
the  schools  instead  of  merely  getting  their  names  on  the  an- 
nual census  lists.  Many  of  these  pupils  remain  some  time,  once 
they  are  in  the  school,  the  number  remaining  being  greater  in 
some  communities  than  in  others.  The  method  places  no  pre- 
mium, however,  on  the  communities  making  an  effort  to  keep  the 
pupils  in  school  beyond  whatever  short  period  the  state  estab- 
lishes as  a  requisite  for  the  apportionment  of  "  enrollment 
money."  From  an  educational  point  of  view,  this  is  a  marked 
defect.  The  smaller  the  minimum  time  required  to  draw  "  en- 
rollment money  "  the  more  defective  is  the  use  of  enrollment 
as  a  basis  for  apportionment,  and  the  greater  the  temptation  to 
communities  to  artificially  swell  their  school  enrollment.  A  study 
of  the  last  two  columns  of  figures  in  Table  No.  41  would 
seem  to  indicate  that  the  enrollment  basis  as  used  in  New 
Hampshire  is  but  little  better  than  the  census  basis,  and  that 
either  average-membership  or  average-daily-attendance  would  be 
a  much  better  test  of  the  educational  efforts  made  by  a  com- 
munity and  the  actual  service  rendered  by  its  schools.  In  fact, 
whatever  may  be  the  history  of  the  evolution  of  an  apportion- 
ment basis  in  the  different  states,  enrollment  as  a  basis  for 
apportionment  must  be  regarded  as  only  an  intermediate  step 
in  the  state's  evolution  from  a  census  basis  of  apportionment  to 
a  more  just  system.  The  next  step  would  be  the  use  of  average- 
membership  (average-number-belonging),  though  most  states 
which  have  abandoned  the  census  basis  have  gone  direct  to  some 
form  of  the  next  higher  step,  that  of  using  average-daily-attend- 
ance, without  stopping  at  any  of  these  intermediate  steps. 


142  School  Funds  and  their  Apportionment 

THE   AVERAGE-MEMBERSHIP   BASIS. 

The  Minnesota  requirement  of  a  forty-days  enrollment  before 
being  counted  for  state  apportionment  is  an  approach  toward 
the  average-membership  or  average-number-belonging  basis. 
The  use  of  average-number-belonging  as  a  basis  for  apportion- 
ment is  an  effort  to  measure  the  work  of  a  school  by  the 
average  number  it  can  keep  enrolled  during  the  entire  school 
term.  It  not  infrequently  happens  in  many  of  our  cities  that 
the  number  enrolled  at  the  opening  of  the  school  is  compara- 
tively large  and  that  the  schools  are  crowded,  while  toward  the 
close  of  the  year  the  enrollment  drops  very  materially  and  most 
of  the  schools  have  plenty  of  vacant  seats.  In  the  country 
schools  the  enrollment  is  usually  highest  during  the  winter  and 
lowest  in  the  autumn  and  spring.  The  average-number-belonging 
basis,  instead  of  paying  for  the  number  who  remain  ten  days  or 
forty  days,  pays  for  the  average  number  who  remain  throughout 
the  entire  school  year.  To  illustrate,  let  us  suppose  that  a  group 
of  four  schools,  each  of  which  had  a  six  months  term  and  a 
total  enrollment  during  the  school  year  of  100  pupils,  had  the 
following  average-number-belonging  each  of  the  six  months  of 
the  school  term,  and  let  us  further  suppose  that  the  state  appor- 
tionment was  equal  to  $3.00  per  pupil  in  average-membership. 
We  then  get  the  following  result: 

TABLE  No.  44- 

AVERAGE    MEMBERSHIP   IN    FOUR  DIFFERENT    SCHOOLS    COMPARED. 

Month.                              School  A.  School  B.  School  C.  School  D. 

First 96  83  96  94 

Second 97  88  98  90 

Third 94  94  90  81 

Fourth 92  98  83  70 

Fifth 88  95  79  60 

Sixth 85  94  76  57 

Av.  No.  belonging 1J- 92  92  87  77 

Income  per  school  @  $3.00 
per  pupil  in  average  mem- 
bership  $276.00  $276.00  $261.00  $231.00 

11  These  averages  are  only  arithmetical  averages  for  the  six  months. 
Practically  there  might  be  a  slight  difference  between  the  actual  average 
membership  for  the  year  obtained  by  a  careful  count  for  the  six  months, 
but  for  illustrative  purposes  the  difference  is  negligible. 


The  Average-Membership  Basis  143 

Under  a  forty-day  or  a  sixty-day  enrollment  appropriation 
basis,  each  of  the  above  schools  would  receive  about  the  same 
amount,  as  each  would  have  an  enrollment  of  about  95  pupils 
during  such  a  minimum  period.  Under  an  average-membership 
basis  of  apportionment,  however,  the  results  would  be  quite  dif- 
ferent. School  A  would  lose  because  of  the  decrease  of  mem- 
bership during  the  last  two  months,  while  School  B  would  lose 
chiefly  because  of  a  low  enrollment  or  membership  at  the 
beginning  of  the  term.  Schools  C  and  D  would  lose  very  ma- 
terially because  of  a  very  rapid  decrease  in  membership  after  the 
first  two  months. 

Under  this  basis  of  apportionment,  each  community  would  be 
paid  by  the  state  both  in  proportion  to  its  success  in  securing  a 
large  enrollment  and  in  proportion  to  its  success  in  keeping  a 
large  percentage  of  those  enrolled  in  membership  in  the  school 
during  the  term.  The  premium  is  placed  not  only  on  enroll- 
ment, on  enrollment  for  a  minimum  term,  but  on  continuous 
membership  during  the  entire  term.  The  effect  is  to  put  a 
premium  on  the  efforts  which  a  community  makes  to  keep  up 
its  enrollment  throughout  the  year.  The  tendency  of  this  is  to 
place  a  premium  on  good  schools,  good  teachers,  interest  taken 
to  get  children  into  the  school  and  to  keep  them  there,  and  the 
enforcement  of  the  compulsory  attendance  and  child  labor  laws. 

The  use  of  average-membership  also  makes  it  possible,  for  the 
first  time,  to  dispense  with  the  customary  tuition  charges  between 
districts.  A  pupil  might  be  enrolled  in  one  school  or  five  schools 
during  the  year  without  the  state's  total  being  affected,  the  state 
paying  for  but  one  pupil  in  any  case.  That  pupils  might  want 
to  leave  a  small  and  poor  school  and  go  to  a  better  one  else- 
where is  not  a  matter  that  the  state  need  to  consider,  provided 
the  state  first  makes  sufficient  provision  for  the  payment  of  the 
teacher  for  the  school.  So  long  as  the  school's  state  income  is 
wholly  dependent  upon  the  number  of  pupils  in  the  school  it 
may  be  desirable  to  prevent  pupils  from  leaving  a  school  for 
a  better  one  elsewhere,  but  with  a  rational  system  of  apportion- 
ment this  can  be  left  to  care  for  itself.  If  a  better  teacher  in 
the  school  will  not  stop  the  depletion,  then  the  state  should 
abandon  the  school,  transport  the  children,  and  annex  the  dis- 
trict for  taxing  purposes  to  the  district  to  which  the  pupils  go. 
There  are  many  communities  where  the  abolition  of  the  inter- 


144  School  Funds  and  their  Apportionment 

district  tuition  fees  would  speedily  result  in  a  concentration  of 
schools. 

Practically,  however,  the  use  of  average-membership  as  a  basis 
for  apportionment  is  open  to  certain  serious  objections,  and  is 
not  used  by  any  state  as  a  basis  for  apportioning  funds.  How- 
ever desirable  it  may  be  to  have  pupils  belong  to  the  school 
during  the  entire  year,  belonging  to  a  school  and  being  there  may 
be  two  entirely  different  things.  This  is  well  illustrated  in  the  case 
of  Belknap  County,  New  Hampshire  (Table  No.  41).  The  table 
shows  that  while  the  schools  of  the  county  enrolled  an  average 
of  1 08  pupils  for  every  100  pupils  reported  by  the  enumerators, 
only  85  out  of  every  100  who  attended  two  weeks  remained 
in  average-membership  throughout  the  year,  and  further  cal- 
culation shows  that  only  78  out  of  the  85  remaining  in  average- 
memibership  were  present  on  an  average  each  day.  Among 
the  individual  towns  the  percentages  varied  much  more.  This 
county  had  the  highest  percentage  of  average-daily-attendance 
on  its  average-membership  of  any  county  in  the  state.  In  the 
next  county,  alphabetically  (Carroll),  the  percentage  of  the 
membership  in  daily  attendance  was  86  for  the  county  as  a 
whole,  and  the  different  towns  had  the  following  percentages 
of  their  membership  in  average  attendance  Curing  the  same  year  :12 

73  90  80  87  86  79 

80  84  94  93  82  89 

85  9i  85  83  84 

These  averages  show  that  the  different  towns  of  this  county 
looked  after  the  attendance  of  their  pupils  very  differently,  the 
first  town  averaging  but  73  present  out  of  every  100  in  average- 
membership,  and  the  eighth  town  averaging  94  present  out  of 
every  100  in  average-membership.  Under  an  average-member- 
ship basis  of  apportionment,  each  of  the  above  towns  would  have 
fared  alike  for  every  pupil  belonging  to  the  schools,  though  the 
number  of  those  belonging  to  the  schools  who  were  in  attend- 
ance each  day,  as  the  above  figures  show,  varied  greatly. 

The  chief  defect  of  the  average-membership  basis  is  that 
while  offering  a  good  incentive  to  communities  to  keep  pupils 
enrolled  in  the  schools,  it  offers  no  incentive  to  the  schools  to  see 

12  Kept.  Supt.  Pub.  Instr.,  N.  Hamp.,  1901-02,  p.  211. 


The  Average-Membership  Basis  145 

that  the  pupils  attend  regularly,  and  rather  places  a  premium 
no  allowing  irregular  attendance  for  the  sake  of  keeping  the 
name  on  the  rolls.  Doubtless  the  school  pride  of  the  teachers 
and  school  authorities  would  in  most  cases  remedy  this  defect, 
but  the  method  is  theoretically  wrong  in  that  it  opens  the  way 
to  abuses  which  the  state  ought  to  place  a  premium  against.  The 
rules  for  calculating  average-number-belonging  vary  in  differ- 
ent states.  A  common  method  is  to  count  a  pupil  as  belonging 
to  the  school  until  he  has  been  absent  five  days  or  is  known 
to  have  withdrawn.  The  time  is  seldom  lower  than  three  days. 
Under  a  five-day  plan  it  would  be  possible  for  a  pupil  to  attend 
school  but  one  day  a  week,  say  every  Monday,  and  be  counted 
for  the  month  as  one  whole  pupil  in  average-membership,  while 
under  an  average-daily-attendance  basis  he  would  count  as  but 
four-twentieths  of  a  pupil.  Theoretically  the  pupil  belonged 
to  the  school  and  his  seat  was  saved  for  him ;  practically  he  kept 
no  one  else  from  attending  the  school,  the  school  spent  no  effort 
in  instructing  him,  and  the  school  need  make  no  effort  to  have 
him  attend  more  regularly.  Irregular  attendance  is  thus  placed 
on  the  same  basis  as  regular  attendance  in  the  apportionment  of 
school  money.  This  ought  not  to  be.  The  state  ought  to  place 
a  penalty  rather  than  a  premium  on  what  is  one  of  the  most 
serious  interferences  with  the  proper  advancement  of  pupils  in 
school  work.  Daily  attendance  is  a  much  more  rational  basis 
for  apportioning  funds  than  average-membership,  and  most  states 
Which  have  changed  from  the  census  basis  have  passed  to  it  direct. 


CHAPTER  XI 

THE  DAILY  ATTENDANCE  BASIS 
AVERAGE  DAILY  ATTENDANCE. 

UNDER  this  basis  of  apportioning  school  funds  the  state  pays 
communities  for  the  exact  number  of  pupils  which  they  really 
teach.  School  census  and  total  school  enrollment  are  not  di- 
rectly considered ;  the  important  consideration  now  becomes  the 
actual  number  of  pupils  at  school  each  day.  The  premium  is 
now  placed  by  the  state  not  only  on  enrollment  and  retention  of 
membership  in  the  school,  but  upon  regularity  of  attendance 
after  the  pupil  becomes  a  member  of  the  school.  If  a  school 
has  a  large  enrollment  and  a  low  daily  attendance  it  becomes  the 
duty  of  the  school  to  try  to  secure  a  more  regular  attendance 
if  it  desires  to  receive  more  state  money.  The  state  pays  for 
all  who  are  in  attendance,  but  not  for  those  who  ought  to  'be 
and  are  not.  This.. basis  of  apportioning  funds  thus  gives  a 
strong  incentive  to  communities  to  provide  those  educational 
conditions  which  will  induce  a  large  percentage  of  the  school 
census  to  attend  the  public  schools,  and  to  appoint  attendance 
officers  to  enforce  the  attendance  and  child-labor  laws.  To  the 
teachers  and  school  authorities  it  offers  an  additional  inducement 
to  follow  up  all  cases  of  irregular  attendance,  with  a  view  to 
effecting  an  improvement.  This  may  be  over-done,  of  course, 
but  there  is  less  danger  from  this  than  from  neglect.  All  com- 
munities may  not  do  these  things,  but  the  state  premium  is  on 
such  efforts,  and  such  efforts  are  in  the  interests  of  good 
education. 

Average  daily  attendance  is  found  by  counting  up  the  total 
number  of  days  of  attendance  for  the  school  month,  or  school 
year,  and  dividing  this  by  the  number  of  days  of  school  during 
the  period  considered.  To  illustrate,  let  us  take  Schools  A  and  B, 
Table  No.  44,  for  the  third  month,  when  the  average  number 


The  Average  Daily  Attendance  Basis  147 

belonging  (average  membership)  was  94  in  each  school,  and 
assume  that  the  daily  attendance  for  each  school  was  as  follows : 

TABLE  No.  45. 

AVERAGE   DAILY   ATTENDANCE   FOR  TWO   SCHOOLS    COMPARED. 

SCHOOL  A. 

First  week.  Second  ^ueek.  Third  week.  Fourth  iveek. 
94                              82                              91  94 

93  74  94  96 

94  79  96  83 

95  88  94  89 
95                              94                              9i  94 

SCHOOL  B. 

First  week.           Second  week.  Third  week.          Fourth  wnek. 

94                              80  91^                          91 

92                              60  92                              94 

77^  87^ 

86^  94 

94                              94  90                              94 

Adding  and  averaging1  the  above,  we  get  the  following : 

School  A.  School  B. 

Total  days  attendance  for  month 1,810  1,760 

Average  daily  attendance 90^  88 

Percentage   of  average   daily   attendance   on   average 
number  belonging 96.1  %  93-7% 

If  we  now  assume  that  the  state  apportionment  per  pupil  in 
average  daily  attendance  is  $3.60  per  year,  or  $.60  per  pupil  per 
month  for  a  six  months  term,  we  get  the  following  table  of  in- 
come on  the  average  daily  attendance  basis. 

School  A.  School  J9. 

Received  per  pupil  in  average  daily  attendance — 

(a)   Per  month $0.60  $0.60 

(&)   Per  day 03  .03 

Received  for  the  third  month — 

(a)  If  all  belonging  had  been  present 56.40  56.40 

(b)  On  average  daily  attendance 54-30  52.80 

(c)  Loss  through  absence  during  month 2.10  3.60 

(d}  Average  loss  per  day iol/2  .18 

(e)  Loss  through  absence  second  week 1.59  2,20 


148  School  Funds  and  their  Apportionment 

A  loss  of  three  cents  a  day  per  pupil  does  not  seem  large,  and 
if  a  community  chooses  to  neglect  it  it  is  privileged  to  do  so. 
The  loss  however,  falls  wholly  on  the  community.  Under  any 
previous  apportionment  basis  it  would  fall  on  the  state.  Three 
cents  a  day,  though  small,  is  a  larger  amount  than  it  at  first 
thought  appears.  Let  us  assume  that  Schools  A  and  B  each  had 
three  teachers,  each  teacher  paid  $50  a  month  for  a  six  months 
term,  and  that  the  other  expenses  of  each  school  were  $100  for 
the  year.  This  would  equal  $1000  per  school,  or  $8.33  per 
day,  and  $.09  per  pupil  on  average  number  (94)  belonging. 
Three  cents  per  day  per  pupil  would  thus  be  one-third  of  the 
expense  of  the  school.  In  a  city  with  5,000  pupils  belonging  to 
the  schools,  and  an  income  from  the  state  funds  of  $.03  a  day  for 
every  pupil  in  average  daily  attendance,  every  loss  of  i%  in 
attendance  equals  a  loss  of  $1.50  per  day  to  the  schools. 

Under  the  census  basis  of  apportionment,  any  money  spent 
by  a  city  for  attendance  officers  is  a  financial  outlay  which  the 
city  must  meet  entirely  from  its  own  treasury,  but  with  a  state 
reward  of  three  cents  a  day  for  every  pupil  put  in  the  schools 
by  an  attendance  officer  or  kept  in  the  schools  because  of  his 
employment,  a  city  could  easily  pay  his  salary  from  the  addi- 
tional income  which  his  services  or  his  presence  would  bring  in. 
The  additional  teacher  required  to  teach  the  children  so  put  or 
kept  in  school  would  still  have  to  be  paid  by  the  community, 
except  as  there  might  be  a  surplus  after  paying  the  attendance 
officer;  but  under  a  rational  system  of  apportionment,  as  we 
shall  point  out  later,  the  state  could  and  should  place  a  premium 
on  the  addition  of  teachers  to  the  school  as  well  as  on  the  addi- 
tion of  children.  ^Qne  important  reason  why  the  attendance  laws 
are  not  enforced  betteFtlian  they  now  are  by  the  cities  and  towns 
is  that  the  total  expense  of  enforcing  these  laws  and  of  provid- 
ing teachers  for  the  additional  children  falls,  in  most  states, 
entirely  on  the  community,  the  state  offering  no  premium  what- 
ever for  such  work.  This  is  neither  wise  nor  just. 

The  question  of  importance  is,  would  an  average  daily  at- 
tendance apportionment  basis  be  equally  just  to  the  city,  town, 
and  country  schools,  and  how  would  each  fare  under  such  an 
apportionment  basis?  An  inspection  of  Tables  No.  32,  33,  and 
34,  in  Chapter  IX,  will  show  that  the  relation  of  average  daily 
attendance  to  total  school  population  (census)  is  somewhat  irre- 


The  Average  Daily  Attendance  Basis  149 

gular.  Doubtless  enrollment  and  average  daily  attendance  would 
show  a  much  more  constant  relation,  as  about  a  certain  propor- 
tion of  those  who  become  members  of  the  school  would  probably 
continue  in  regular  attendance,  though  this  proportion  would 
bear  no  definite  relation  to  the  number  who  are  of  school  age. 
To  ascertain  whether  or  not  average  daily  attendance  bears  any 
close  relation  to  enrollment  we  compile  a  table  showing  compara- 
tively the  percentage  of  the  school  census  enrolled  and  the  per- 
centage of  this  enrollment  which  was  in  average  daily  attend- 
ance at  school  throughout  the  school  year,  using  the  two  states 
whose  school  reports  contain  ihe  most  complete  statistical  data 
for  such  a  calculation.  The  same  first  eight  counties,  alphabetic- 
ally, and  the  same  three  largest  cities  are  used  which  have 
been  used  in  the  preceding  tables. 

TABLE  No.  46. 

PERCENTAGE  OF   CENSUS    ENROLLED  AND   PERCENTAGE  OF  ENROLLMENT   IN    AVER- 
AGE DAILY   ATTENDANCE   COMPARED   FOR  TWO    STATES. 

(Percentage  of   enrollment  taken    from   preceding  tables;    average    daily 

attendance  calculated  from  statistical  data  given  in  tthe  Repts.  State 

Supts.  Pub.  Instr.  for  the  years  indicated.) 

Missouri,  1904.  Indiana,  1904. 

Counties,  in  Per  cent  of        Per  cent  of  Per  cent  of        Per  cent  of^ 

alphabetical  order.  census,  t>-2O      enrollment  in         eensus,  b-2i      enrollment  in 

Yrs.,  enrolled.   Av.Dy.Att.       Yrs.,  enrolled.    Av.Dy.Att. 

First 80%,  61%  69%  76% 

Second 103%  47%  48%  74% 

Third 95%  64%  74%  72% 

Fourth 78%  71%  83%  74% 

Fifth 100%  54%  79%  70% 

Sixth 93%  63%  82%  80% 

Seventh 90%  72%  76%  80% 

Eighth 77%  62%  80%  81% 

Three  largest  cities — 

First 48%  75%  67%  73% 

Second 32%  62%  46%  80% 

Third 27%  83%  42%  77% 

State  as  a  whole 74%  63%  72%  75% 

(a)  Rural  schools 88%  58%  75%  74% 

(t)  Town  schools 59%  71%  64%  77% 

In  the  Missouri  tables  it  will  be  noticed  that  the  two  counties 
having  the  lowest  average  daily  attendance  had  an  enrollment 


150  School  Funds  and  their  Apportionment 

of  100%  and  103%  of  census.  The  low  percentage  of  attend- 
ance was  to  be  expected.  Each,  however,  is  not  far  from  equiva- 
lent to  an  average  daily  attendance  of  65%  on  an  enrollment  of 
80%,  which  is  near  the  average  for  these  eight  counties  and  for 
the  state.  The  Indiana  counties  and  cities,  though  differing 
widely  in  percentage  of  census  enrolled,  are  fairly  uniform  in 
the  percentage  of  the  enrollment  which  remained  in  average  daily 
attendance,  notwithstanding  that  the  city  school  term  is  about 
one-half  longer  than  that  of  the  county  schools. 

The  statistical  tables  in  the  Indiana  report  enable  us  to  separ- 
ate the  last  column  of  percentages  and  calculate  the  percentage 
of  average  daily  attendance  on  enrollment  for  rural,  town,  and 
city  schools.  Doing  this  for  the  first  ten  counties,  alphabetically, 
and  for  the  two  counties  containing  the  two  largest  cities,  and 
arranging  the  percentages  in  a  comparative  table,  we  get  the 
following  result. 

TABLE  No.  47. 

CENSUS,    ENROLLMENT,    AND    AVERAGE    DAILY    ATTENDANCE    COMPARED    FOR    CER- 
TAIN   INDIANA   COUNTIES. 

(Calculated  for  the  school  year  1903-04,  from  statistical  tables  7a,  jb,  7c, 
Kept.  Supt.  Pub.  Instr.,  hid.,  1904.) 

Percentage  Percentage  of  total  enrollment  in  Av.  Dy.  Att. 

Counties.  b-z^years,  In  all  In  rural  In  town  In  city 

enrolled.  schools.  schools.  schools.  schools. 

Adams 69%  76%  74%  79%  79% 

Allen 48%  74%  69%  83%  78%  * 

Bartholomew 74%  72%  69%  75%  75% 

Benton 83%  74%  7«%  82%                o% 

Blackford 79%  70%  64%  o%  73% 

Boone 82%  80%  83%  85%  71% 

Brown 76%  80%  79%  85%                Q% 

Carroll 80%  81%  80%  79%  94% 

Cass 70%  82%  80%  88%  80% 

Clark 69%  78%  80%  80%  75% 

Marion 68%  74%  77%  o%  73%  t 

Vanderburg 48%  75%  67%  o%  78%  \ 

State  average 72%  75%  75%  80%  74% 

*  City  of  Ft.  Wayne,  third  largest  city. 

f  City  of  Indianapolis,  largest  city. 

t  City  of  Evansville,  second  largest  city. 

The   general    uniformity    in   these   percentages   is   noticeable. 


The  Average  Daily  Attendance  Basis  151 

The  town  schools  are  a  little  higher,  but,  as  was  pointed  out  in 
considering  a  similar  table  under  Chapter  IX,  (Table  No.  35), 
this  is  partly  due  to  the  presence  of  "  tuition  pupils  "  from  the 
rural  schools.  On  an  average,  whatever  per  cent,  of  the  census 
enrolled,  about  seventy-five  out  of  every  one  hundred  of  those 
enrolled  are  in  attendance  at  school  each  day  throughout  the 
school  year.  As  the  city  term  is  nine  to  ten  months  to  the 
country  term  of  six  to  seven  months,  and  as  there  is  always  a 
tendency  for  the  attendance  to  drop  off  toward  the  end  of  the 
year,  it  is  evident  that  the  cities  of  Indiana  are  somewhat  more 
successful  in  securing  attendance  during  a  corresponding  number 
of  months  than  are  the  country  districts. 

The  percentages  of  average  daily  attendance  on  enrollment 
have  been  calculated  to  show  something  of  the  relation  existing 
between  the  two.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  average  daily  attendance, 
when  expressed  in  a  percentage,  is  generally  calculated  on  the 
average  membership  and  not  on  the  total  enrollment.  This  gives 
a  somewhat  equally  constant  percentage.  For  the  fifty-seven 
counties  of  California,1  for  example,  this  percentage  was : 

In  i  county 88%  In  15  counties 93% 

In  2  counties 91%  In  20  counties 94% 

In  9  counties 92%  In  10  counties 


The  percentage  of  average  daily  attendance,  however  calcu- 
j  lated,  is  useful  only  as  an  index  of  regularity.  It  cannot  be 
used  as  a  basis  of  apportionment,  because  it  does  not  take  into 
consideration  the  number  of  children.  A  large  city  and  a  small 
country  district  might  have  the  same  percentage  of  average  daily 
attendance,  while  the  number  of  children  taught  in  one  would  be 
a  thousand  times  the  number  taught  in  the  other.  We  have  cal- 
culated the  percentages  to  show  that,  at  least  for  the  groups  con- 
sidered, the  percentage  of  enrollment  and  of  average  membership 
in  daily  attendance  do  not  materially  vary. 

This  would  indicate  that  the  main  factor  to  be  looked  after  is 
the  enrollment,  and  it  would  further  indicate  that  the  actual  num- 
ber of  children  in  daily  attendance  at  school  is  a  much  more 
constant  quantity  than  either  enrollment  or  average  member- 
ship. The  problem  for  the  city,  the  town,  and  the  country  dis- 
trict then  would  seem  to  be  to  provide  those  conditions  and 

1  2ist  Bien.  Kept.  Supt.  Pub.  Instr.,  CaL,  1904,  p.  165. 


152  School  Funds  and  their  Apportionment 

teachers  which  will  first  attract  a  large  enrollment  to  the  public 
/  school,  and  which  will  keep  as  large  a  percentage  as  possible 
of  this  enrollment  in  school  during  the  entire  year.  By  using 
average  daily  attendance  as  a  basis  for  the  apportionment  of 
funds,  the  state  thus  places  a  premium  on  all  those  things 
which  go  to  make  a  public  school  system  attractive,  such  as 
good  buildings,  no  over-crowded  classes,  well-trained  and  well- 
paid  teachers,  good  kindergartens,  manual  training,  good  high 
schools,  and,  last  but  not  least,  a  public  pride  in  the  school  sys- 
tem maintained.  A  premium  is  also  placed  on  the  enforcement 
of  the  compulsory  attendance  and  child  labor  laws.  One  of  the 
best  means  of  getting  a  law  enforced  is  to  make  it  an  object  to 
a  community  to  enforce  it.  The  system  is  one  of  "  payment  by 
results,"  but  instead  of  paying  on  the  basis  of  the  number  of 
passes  "  in  Geography  and  Arithmetic,  as  the  English  did  for 
so  long  in  their  elementary  school  system,  the  state  pays  so  much 
each  for  the  average  number  of  children  kept  in  school  every  day 
of  the  school  year.  If  a  community  wants  more  money  from 
the  state  in  return  for  its  taxes  let  it  make  a  greater  effort  to 
get  more  children  into  the  public  schools  and  to  keep  them  there. 

There  are  at  present  many  cities  where  the  percentage  of  the 
school  census  enrolled  in  the  public  schools  is  less  than  fifty 
per  cent.,  where  the  private  school  enrollment  is  large,  where 
the  best  citizens  set  an  example  by  sending  their  children  to 
private  schools,  and  where  a  strong  public  school  spirit  is  lack- 
ing. Mere  personal  zeal  on  the  part  of  the  school  superinten- 
dent cannot  alone  counteract  these  tendencies.  The  state  should 
make  it  a  real  financial  object  to  such  communities  to  build  up 
their  public  school  system. 

Of  course  the  effort  to  get  attendance  may  be  overdone  by 
the  school  authorities,  and  pressure  may  be  exerted  to  keep 
children  in  school  when  they  would  better  be  at  home.  The  good 
sense  of  parents,  however,  serves  as  something  of  a  corrective  to 
a  tendency  in  this  direction,  and  in  any  event  the  bad  results 
are  likely  to  be  much  less  than  under  a  method  where  no  em- 
phasis is  placed  on  attending  the  school. 

The  problem  is  the  same  for  the  country  school  as  for  the 
city  school.  If  the  parents  of  the  children  think  that  their  boys 
are  worth  more  to  them  while  planting  corn  or  burning  stumps 
than  while  attending  school,  then  the  state  ought  to  require 


The  Average  Daily  Attendance  Basis  153 

such  parents  to  pay  part  of  the  profits  of  such  labor  into  the 
school  'treasury  in  the  form  of  an  increased  school  tax  to  make 
up  for  what  the  state  should  refuse  to  give  for  such  absence  from 
school.  That  these  boys,  though  of  school  age,  may  be  needed 
at  home  and  may  be  learning  valuable  lessons  while  helping 
their  fathers  is  not  a  plea  to  which  the  state  can  give  any  con- 
sideration. The  state's  business  is  to  help  communities  provide 
for  the  education  of  their  children,  and  the  education  of  the 
children,  from  the  point  of  view  of  the  state,  does  not  take  place 
when  the  children  are  absent  from  the  school  which  the 
state  provides.  By  paying  communities  for  so  many  children 
of  an  arbitrarily  determined  "  school  age,"  regardless  of  whether 
these  children  attend  school  regularly,  or  even  at  all,  the  state 
occupies  a  purely  negative  position.  While  not  actually  encour- 
aging absence,  it  does  nothing  whatever  to  encourage  attendance. 

Whether  or  not  a  community  pays  more  school  tax  to  the  state 
than  it  receives  in  return  is  not  a  matter  with  which  we  have 
any  concern.  This  is  a  matter  of  educational  and  fiscal  policy 
which  was  settled  when  the  state  decided  that  "  the  wealth  of 
the  state  should  help  to  educate  the  children  of  the  state."  If 
the  question  of  "  taxes  paid  "  is  to  be  brought  to  the  front,  we 
begin  again  the  discussion  of  whether  or  not  we  shall  have  a  state 
school  system  or  only  a  series  of  local  systems.  That  question 
was  settled  in  most  states  long  ago ;  the  question  of  to-day  is  what 
amount  of  aid  shall  the  state  give  and  how  can  it  distribute  this 
aid  so  as  best  to  equalize  the  burdens  and  the  advantages  of  edu- 
cation. 

As  to  the  small  country  districts,  these  would  receive  the  same 
amount  of  money  from  the  state  on  the  average  daily  attendance 
basis  of  apportionment  as  on  the  census  basis,  so  long  as  their 
average  daily  attendance  did  not  fall  below  the  average  for  the 
state.  As  was  pointed  out  in  discussing  the  enrollment  basis,  there 
is  only  so  much  money  to  go  around,  hence  the  amount  received 
under  an  average  daily  attendance  basis  of  apportionment  would 
be  the  same  as  under  a  census  basis,  provided  the  district  had  as 
high  an  average  daily  attendance  as  the  average  for  the  state. 
If  it  had  a  higher  average  it  would  gain,  if  a  lower  it  would 
lose.  A  country  district  has  the  same  chance  to  gain  that  the 
towns  and  cities  have,  and  under  this  basis  of  apportionment 


154  School  Funds  and  their  Apportionment 

the  state  will  reward  any  efforts  made  toward  better  attendance, 
as  well  as  punish  carelessness  in  this  regard. 

Let  us  now  see  how  the  country  districts  and  the  cities  would 
fare  under  the  average  daily  attendance  basis  of  apportionment, 
using  only  the  same  funds  as  now  provided. 

In  Table  No.  24,  Chapter  IX,  we  showed  how  a  series  of  coun- 
try districts  in  Wisconsin,  varying  in  size  from  a  census  of  II 
to  137,  would  fare  under  the  census  basis  of  apportionment,  at 
the  rate  for  1903-04.  In  Chapter  X  we  showed  that  this  ap- 
portionment of  $1.82^2  on  census  was  equal  to  a  state  apportion- 
ment of  $2.99  on  total  enrollment,  and  to  a  state  apportionment 
of  $3.52  on  a  forty-day  enrollment,  calculated  on  the  Minnesota 
state  average  of  15%  of  the  pupils  enrolled  failing  to  remain  in 
school  forty  days.  These  would  be  the  state  average  apportion- 
ments on  such  bases.  In  the  common  school  districts,  however, 
19%  of  the  enrollment  fails  to  remain  forty  days  (Table  No.  43, 
Chapter  X),  so  in  any  calculations  for  country  schools  alone  we 
must  deduct  19%  from  the  enrollment  instead  of  15%,  before 
multiplying  by  the  apportionment  of  $3.52.  To  avoid  fractional 
numbers  in  calculating  the  next  table  we  will  deduct  20%  for 
country  schools  instead  of  19%. 

The  Wisconsin  school  reports  do  not  give  any  data  from  which 
the  percentage  of  average  daily  attendance  on  enrollment  can  be 
calculated  for  the  counties.  For  the  cities  under  city  superin- 
tendents, it  was  75%  in  1 903-04. 2  This  is  about  the  same  as  in 
Indiana.  (See  Table  No.  46).  To  continue  the  table  previously 
used  for  Wisconsin,  let  us  assume  that  for  the  entire  state  the 
average  daily  attendance  for  1901-02  was  72%  of  the  total  en- 
rollment. If  the  state  apportionment  on  census  of  $1.82^  would 
have  been  worth  $2.99  on  total  enrollment,  then  it  would  be  worth 
$4.15  on  an  assumed  state  average  daily  attendance  of  72%  of 
the  enrollment.  This,  though,  is  for  the  state  as  a  whole.  The 
cities  had  an  average  daily  attendance  of  75%,  as  stated  above, 
and  they  represent  about  two-fifths  of  the  total  enrollment.  This 
would  give  an  average  daily  attendance  for  the  towns  and 
country  districts  of  70%  of  their  enrollment,  which  the  next 
table  shows  to  be  about  right.  Now  to  find  what  a  series  of 

2  Calculated  from  data  given  in  the  Bien.  Kept.  State  Supt.  Pub.  Instr., 
Wis.,  1903-04,  statistical  tables,  p.  116. 


The  Average  Daily  Attendance  Basis  155 

Wisconsin  school  districts  of  a  certain  size  would  receive  on  an 
average  daily  attendance  basis,  we  take  70%  of  the  enrollment 
and  multiply  it  by  $4.15. 

TABLE  No.  48. 

SHOWING  WHAT  SMALL  COUNTRY  SCHOOLS  OF  CERTAIN  SIZES  IN  WISCONSIN 
WOULD  RECEIVE  UNDER  CERTAIN  PLANS  OF  APPORTIONMENT,  BASING  CALCU- 
LATIONS ON  TOTAL  APPORTIONMENT,  CENSUS,  ENROLLMENT,  AND  ESTIMATED 
AVERAGE  DAILY  ATTENDANCE. 

(Calculated  for  1903-04  from  statistical  data  given  in  the  Rcpt.  Supt.  Pub. 
Instr.,  Wis.,  1903-04.  See  similar  preceding  tables.  The  different  ap- 
portionment values  are  calculated  on  the  state  averages,  but  the  percent- 
ages used  in  the  table  are  those  for  town  and  country  schools  only.) 


Census 
4-20  year 

II 

Enrollment 
at  State 
i               average 
s.            without 
cities, 
oft>5f 
7 

Amount  of  State  aid  apportioned  on: 

Census,                    Total                 Forty-day          Av.  Dy.  Att, 
4-20  years            enrollment           enrollment              <"  70  -  of 
ofage,«>                 (it  ,$2  QQ.           wit  fi  20  i  loss,         enrollment, 
'$1.82%.                                                &••  $3-52.             and  («:  $4.15. 

$20.08                   $20.93                   $21.12                   $20.75 
29.20                     29.90                     28.16                     29.05 
41.98                     44.85                      42.24                     41.50 
56.38                     59-80                     56.32                     58.10 
7I.I8                     74-75                      70.40                     70-55 
83.95                     89.70                     84.48                     87.15 

113.15             119.60             112.64             116.20 

140.53                   149.50                   140.80                   I45.25 
107.90                   17940                   I68.06                   I74-30 
197.10                   209.30                   197.12                   203.35 
224.48                   239.20                   224.38                   232.40 
2=;O.O3                  266.11                  249.02                  257-30 

16  

.   io4- 

2\ 

I 
.  m 

'U  •  • 

.    20-1- 

•JQ.  . 

i 

.    2^-4- 

46 

D  1 
^0 

62  

40  1 

77 

•    4^   1 

CQ 

02.  . 

60— 

108  .     . 

7O-I- 

123  

137.. 

'      1 
80 
.   80 

This  table  shows  that  even  after  making  allowance  for  the 
differences  between  state  averages,  city  averages,  and  country 
averages,3  the  small  country  district  really  does  not  profit  by  the 
wide  school  census  limits  on  which  the  census  apportionment  is 
based,  but  would  receive  practically  as  large  an  apportionment 
of  funds  under  either  the  forty-day  enrollment  basis  as  used  in 
Minnesota,  or  the  average  daily  attendance  basis,  as  used  in  Flor- 

3  The  difference  between  the  total  state  average  percentage  and  the 
average  percentage  after  excluding  the  cities  should  be  carefully  kept  in 
mind.  The  former  is  used  to  calculate  the  different  per  capita  apportion- 
ment values,  because  the  apportionment  must  go  to  the  state  as  a  whole 
on  that  basis ;  the  latter  is  used  in  determining  the  total  receipts  in  the 
above  table,  because  it  is  a  table  calculated  for  small  schools,  and  on  the 
averages  for  small  schools. 


156  School  Funds  and  their  Apportionment 

ida.  This,  of  course,  has  been  figured  out  on  the  basis  of  the  sta- 
tistics given  for  Wisconsin  for  1903-04,  as  explained  in  preceding 
pages,  but  will  hold  approximately  true  for  almost  any  state. 

The  exact  value  of  the  state  census  apportionment  used  in 
making  a  calculation  for  some  other  state  would  make  an  actual, 
but  no  relative  difference.  The  proportions  of  the  above  table 
would  hold  true  for  any  size  of  apportionment.  We  could  have 
used  $1.00  as  the  basis  just  as  well  as  $2.18.  Using  $1.00,  the 
relative  values  would  be  : 3 

(1)  Value  on  total  state  census $1.00  per  capita, 

(2)  Value  on  60%  state  enrollment 1.66      "      " 

(3)  Value  on  40  days,  15%  loss  of  enrollment 1.95 

(4)  Value  on  Av.  Dy.  Att.  @  75%  of  the  enrollment 2.21 

For  a  $3.00  census  apportionment,  multiply  each  of  these  values 
by  three ;  for  a  $5.00  apportionment,  multiply  them  by  five. 

Not  only  are  the  relative  amounts  of  Table  No.  48  not  in- 
fluenced by  the  size  of  the  census  apportionment,  but  the  relative 
amounts  received  are  further  not  influenced  by  the  percentages 
for  enrollment  and  attendance  which  are  used.  A  district  of  a 
certain  size  will  always  receive  the  same  amount  of  money  under 
any  one  of  the  four  bases  of  apportionment  considered,  regard- 
less of  what  the  state  percentages  may  be,  so  long  as  the  per- 
centages of  enrollment  and  attendance  for  the  district  are  neither 
below  nor  above  the  averages  for  the  state  as  a  whole,  and  any 
variation  above  or  below  the  state  averages  will  mean  a  cor- 
responding increase  or  a  decrease  in  the  state  funds  received. 

This  will  be  evident  from  the  following  simple  example,  in 
which  we  suppose  four  schools  of  the  same  census  size,  but  in 
two  different  states  having  different  state  average  percentages 
of  enrollment  and  attendance. 


The  Average  Daily  Attendance  Basis  157 

TABLE  No.  49. 

APPORTIONMENTS  OF  FOUR  SCHOOLS  COMPARED  ON  THE  CENSUS,  TOTAL  ENROLL- 

MENT,   FORTY-DAY   ENROLLMENT,   AND   AVERAGE   DAILY 

ATTENDANCE   BASES. 

State  No.  i.  State  No.  2. 

Per  cent.  Number.  Per  cent.   Number, 

Total  school  census  of  each  district.  100%  40  100%  40 

Per  cent  of  census  enrolled 75%.  30  80%  32 

Loss  on  a  forty-day  enrollment 15%  25.5  19%  25.9 

Av.  Dy.  Att.  on  enrollment — 

The  general  state  average 60%  18  75%  24 

Averages  of  Districts  A  and  B..     70%  21  85%  27.2 

Averages  of  Districts  C  and  D.  .     50%  15  65%  20.8 

On  a  basis  of  a  per-capita  on  census  apportionment  of  $1.00  this 
gives  the  following  per-capita  values  for  the  state  apportionment 
in  each  state : 

State  No.  i.  State  No.2. 

Apportionment  on  census $1.00  $1.00 

Apportionment  on  total  enrollment i.333_|_  1.25 

Apportionment  on  forty-day  enrollment 1.569-!-  1-543-}- 

Apportionment  on  average  daily  attendance 2.222-j-  1.666-j- 

Using  the  above  values  for  calculation  we  get  the  following  for  a 
school  of  forty  census  children,  calculated  on  the  state  averages : 

On  census.  On  total  On  forty-day  On  Av. 

Enrollment.         Enrollment.  Dy.  Att, 

State  No.  i $40.00  $40.00  $40.00  $40.00 

State  No.  2 40.00  40.00  40.00  40.00 

This  is  only  a  natural  result.  There  being  only  so  much 
money  to  be  distributed,  a  school,  whatever  its  size,  will  always 
get  the  same  amount  of  money  on  any  basis  of  distribution, 
so  long  as  the  average  for  the  school  is  the  same  as  the  average 
for  the  state.  It  is  only  when  the  school  varies  from  the  state 
average  that  it  gains  or  loses.  This  may  be  shown  by  making 
similar  calculations  for  the  four  schools  A,  B,  C,  and  D,  which 
varied  from  the  state  averages  in  average  daily  attendance,  as 
given  above.  Doing  this,  we  get  the  following  result: 

On  average  daily  attendance* 
District.  On  census.          On  enrollment.         State  No.  /.  State  No.  2. 

A $40.00  $40.00  $46.66              

B 40.00  40.00               $45-33 

C 40.00  40.00  33.33              

D 40.00  40.00              34-66 


158  School  Funds  and  their  Apportionment 

Under  the  census  basis  of  apportionment  a  school  is  always 
on  the  state  average,  regardless  of  whether  it  makes  any  edu- 
cational effort  or  not,  but  under  the  three  other  bases  of  dis- 
tribution considered,  it  may  be  on  the  state  average,  it  may  be 
ahead  of  the  state  average,  or  it  may  be  behind  the  state  average, 
depending  largely  on  the  efforts  it  makes  for  itself.  The  chief 
value  of  the  average  daily  attendance  basis  of  apportionment  is 
that  it  places  a  premium  on  every  day  of  attendance  at  school,  and 
a  community  is  given  a  financial  incentive  to  do  its  best  every 
day.  Any  community  which  can  rise  above  the  average  for  the 
state  is  certain  to  receive  a  financial  reward,  and  any  community 
which  falls  below  the  state  average  will  be  penalized  in  pro- 
portion to  its  deficiency.  It  ought  to  be  made  a  matter  of  local 
pride  in  every  community  to  try  to  keep  up  with  the  average  of 
the  state. 

The  state  of  Florida  uses  average  daily  attendance  entirely  as 
a  basis  for  the  apportionment  of  income  from  state  funds  and 
the  state  one-mill  tax,  having  changed  from  the  straight  census 
basis  to  the  average  daily  attendance  basis  by  amending  the 
constitution  *  of  the  state,  in  1894.  Average  daily  attendance 
is  also  used  as  a  partial  basis  upon  which  the  county  apportion- 

Iment  is  made  in  Arizona  5  and  California.6  After  June,  1905, 
California  will  use  average  daily  attendance,  also,  as  a  partial 
basis  for  the  apportionment  of  state  funds  to  the  counties,  the 
census  basis,  which  has  been  used  in  making  the  state  apportion- 

4  Constitution  of  Florida,  Art.  XII,   Sec.  7.      This   section,  previous  to 
1894,  required  a  distribution  to  the  counties  on  the  basis  of  the  number  of 
children  in  each,  six  to  twelve  years  of  age.     The  change  was  made  in  an 
attempt  to  better  equalize  the  tax  apportioned  to  the  counties.     See  Bien. 
Kept.  Supt.  Pub.  Instr.,  Fla.,  1902,  pp.  46-47. 

5  "  He   (the  County  Superintendent)  must  then  (after  setting  aside  the 
amount  directed  by  law  to  be  set  aside  on  other  apportionment  bases)  ascer- 
tain the  average  attendance  of  each  school  during  the  previous  school  year, 
and  apportion  to  each  district  showing  an  average  attendance  of  more  than 
twenty-five  children,  not  less  than  $20.00  per  capita  on  the  average  attend- 
ance in  excess  of  twenty-five."     Public  Laws  of  Ariz.,  Title  17,  Ch.   16, 
Sec.  128,  div.  2. 

6  "  Fourth.     All  school  money  remaining  on  hand  after  apportioning  to 
the  districts  the  moneys  provided  for  in  subdivision  3  of  this  section,  must 
be  apportioned  to  the  several  districts  in  proportion  to  the  average  daily 
attendance  in  each  district  during  the  preceding  school  year."     Political 
Code  of  Cal,  Sec.  1858,  div.  4. 


The  Average  Daily  Attendance  Basis  159 

ment  up  to  the  present  time,  being  in  large  part  abandoned. 
Arizona  and  California,  however,  belong  to  the  combination  type 
and  will  be  referred  to  again  in  a  later  chapter. 

The  way  in  which  the  rewards  and  penalties  above  referred 
to  would  be  distributed  may  be  shown  by  a  few  actual  cases. 
We  will  take  as  the  first  illustration  one  of  the  small  counties  of 
Montana  for  the  year  1901-02.  This  county  contains  the  city 
of  Butte  with  183  teachers,  two  districts  with  2  teachers  each, 
and  7  single  teacher  districts.  The  average  daily  attendance  for 
the  state  was  48.7%  of  the  school  census 7  during  1901-02, 
and  the  state  apportionment  from  the  income  from  the  state 
school  fund  and  state  school  lands  for  the  year  was  equal  to 
$9.85  on  census,8  or  $20.23  on  an  average  daily  attendance  basis 
of  48.7%.  Naturally  a  district  having  less  than  48.7%  of  its 
census  in  average  daily  attendance  would  lose,  and  one  having 
more  than  48.7%  would  gain.  Calculating,  we  get  the  fol- 
lowing table: 

7  In  reality  this  apportionment  was  made  on  the  census  of  1901,  and  if 
attendance  were  the  basis  used,  would  have  been  made  on  that  for  the 
school  year  1900-01.     The  attendance  figures  as  given  for  the  year  1900-01, 
however,  are  so  full  of  self-evident  errors  that  I  use  the  census  and  attend- 
ance figures  for  the  year  1901-02,  which  appear  to  be  reliable,  and  assume 
that  the  per-capita  value  of  the  state  apportionment  would  be  the  same  as 
for   the  year  previous.      This   may  cause  slight  variations   in  the  actual 
amounts,  but  relatively  it  will  make  no  difference,  the  proportions  being 
true  whether  the  census  apportionment  is  $9.85  or  any  larger  or  smaller 
amount. 

8  The  $9.85  census  apportionment  is  found  by  adding  the  "  Proceeds  of 
School   Lands"    ($114,726.69)    to  the  "Amount  Apportioned  to   Counties 
during  the  Year"    ($493,235.69),  as  given  on  page  378  of  the  7th  Bien. 
Rept.  Supt.  Pub.  Instr.,  Mont.,  and  dividing  this  sum  by  the  number  of 
census  children  (61,728)  on  which  the  apportionment  was  made.     This  sum 
must  be  apportioned  to  the  districts  on  census,  as  required  by  the  consti- 
tution of  the  State.     "  The  interest  on  all  invested  school  funds,  and  all 
rents  from  school  lands,  shall  be  apportioned  to  the  several  school  districts 
of  the  State  in  proportion  to  the  number  of  children  and  youths  between 
the  ages  of  six  and  twenty-one  years,  residing  therein."     Constitution  of 
Mont.,  Art.  XI,  Sec.  5.     The   amounts  actually  received  by  the  districts 
during  the  year  are  slightly  larger  than  the  above,  due  to  the  addition  of 
some  other  items. 


160  School  Funds  and  their  Apportionment 

TABLE  No.  50. 

SILVER  BOW   COUNTY,    MONTANA,    IQOI-02. 

(Calculated  for  the  school  year  1901-02  from  data  given  in  the  Rept.  Supt. 

Pub.  Instr.,  Mont.,  1902,  pp.  348-349.     This  is  the  last  Report  so  far 

printed  by  the  State.) 

Value  of  State  apportionment. 


Name  of  district. 

b 

Butte 

School 
census, 
-21  years. 

II  24O 

A  verage 
Daily 
Att. 

5  ^So 

Per  cent  of 

census  in 
Av.  Dy.  Att. 

AQ  6% 

On  census 

(>'   $Q.8S. 

$100  802  6^ 

OnAv.  Dy. 
("'  $20.23. 

$112  883  40 

Burlington  
Silver  Bow 

110 
102 

65 

•77 

59-1% 
^6  -\% 

1,083.50 

I  OO4  70 

1,314.95 
748  ^1 

Divide  

27 

II 

478% 

226  ^ 

222  57 

Melrose  

86 

M 

784% 

847  10 

667  fa 

Brown's  Gulch.  .  . 
Fish  Trap 

22     . 

JC 

13 
IO 

59-i% 
666% 

2l6.70 
147  7  C 

262.99 

202  30 

Feeley  

10 

C) 

47.4% 

187.15 

l82  07 

Meadow  Gulch  .  .  . 
Ralston.  . 

35 
id 

18 

0 

51-4% 
64.-*% 

347-75 
1^7.00 

364.14 
182.07 

The  state  average  percentage  of  average  daily  attendance  on 
census,  for  1901-02,  was  48.7%,  as  stated  above.  The  city  of 
Butte,  because  of  being  nine-tenths  of  one  per  cent  above  this  aver- 
age, would  have  received  about  $2,000  more  money  on  an  average 
daily  attendance  basis  of  apportionment  than  it  received  on  the 
census  basis,  while  Divide  District  would  have  lost  about  $4.00 
for  being  nine-tenths  of  one  per  cent  below.  The  extreme  cases 
among  the  single  teacher  districts  are  Fish  Trap,  which  would 
have  received  a  premium  of  $54.55  for  its  high  daily  attendance, 
and  Silver  Bow,  which  would  have  lost  $256.19  on  account  of  its 
low  daily  attendance.  On  the  basis  of  a  six  months  school,  $20.23 
per-capita  is  equal  to  $.169  to  each  district  for  each  day  each 
pupil  is  present  at  school ;  on  the  basis  of  an  eight  months  school, 
$.126;  and  on  the  basis  of  a  ten  months  school,  $.101.  The 
amount  on  which  the  census  apportionment  is  calculated  could  be 
changed,  as  was  stated  in  footnote  7,  from  $9.85  to  any  larger 
or  smaller  per-capita  amount  without  changing  the  relative 
results. 

In  Indiana,  the  school  census,9,  6-21  years  of  age,  for  1903-04 
was  768.842  and  the  average  daily  attendance  10  was  416,047. 
This  gives  54.1%  as  the  state  average  of  the  census  in  average 

9  Bien.  Rept.  Supt.  Pub.  Instr.,  Ind.,  1904,  p.  514. 

10  Ibid.,  p.  515. 


The  Average  Daily  Attendance  Basis  161 

daily  attendance  at  the  schools.  Calculating  the  percentages  of 
average  daily  attendance  on  census  for  the  first  ten  counties  of 
the  state,  as  arranged  in  alphabetical  order,  we  get  the  next 
table.  From  this  we  can  easily  determine  what  would  be  the 
effect  of  an  average  daily  attendance  basis  of  apportionment  in 
these  ten  counties. 

TABLE  No.  51. 

PERCENTAGE  OF   CENSUS   IN    AVERAGE  DAILY   ATTENDANCE  IN    CERTAIN    INDIANA- 
COUNTIES. 

(Calculated  for  the  school  year  1903-04  from  -data  given  in  Kept.  Supt\ 
Pub.  Instr.,  hid.,  1904,  tables  70,  7b,  70.) 

Counties.  County  as  a  -whole.      Townships.  Towns.  Cities 

Adams 52%  t  51%  t  63%  *  49%  t 

Allen 35%  t  38%.  t  64%,*  33%  t 

Bartholomew 53%.  t  48%  t  68%.*  59%* 

Benton 62%*  52%  f  80%  *  o% 

Blackford 54%  f  47%  t  o%  61%  * 

Boone 66%  *  63%  *  96%  *  67%  * 

Brown 60%  *  60%,  *  84%  *  o% 

Carroll 64%  *  61%  *  86%  *  83%  * 

Cass 57%*  59%*  73%  *  54%  t 

Clark 54%  f  57%  *  74%.*  42%  t 

*  Would  gain.  t  Would  lose. 

As  54.1%  is  the  State  average,  any  city,  town,  district,  or 
county  having  that  percentage  would  have  received  for  1903-04 
the  same  amount  of  money  under  an  average  daily  attendance 
basis  of  apportionment  as  under  the  census  basis;  while  those 
having  more  than  54.1%  would  have  gained,  and  those  having 
less  would  have  lost.  An  inspection  of  the  above  table  shows 
that  in  two  counties,  considered  as  wholes,  there  would  have 
been  practically  no  change,  three  counties  would  have  lost,  and 
five  counties  would  have  gained.  The  country  schools  in  half  the 
counties  would  have  lost,  and  in  the  other  half  of  the  counties 
they  would  have  gained.  All  of  the  town  schools  would  have 
gained,  the  percentage  of  attendance  in  all  being  high.  Four 
cities  would  have  gained,  three  would  have  lost,  and  one  would 
have  remained  practically  unchanged. 

To  show  more  in  detail  how  this  basis  of  apportionment  would 
affect  these  cities,  we  will  compare  the  amounts  which  they  would 


1 62 


School  Funds  and  their  Apportionment 


receive  under  both  the  census  and  the  average  daily  attendance 
basis  of  apportionment,  using  the  eight  cities  in  the  eight  coun- 
ties in  Table  No.  51,  which  may  be  assumed  in  each  case  to  be 
the  county-seat  cities,  and  also  calculating  similar  figures  for  the 
five  largest  cities  of  the  state.  The  census  apportionment  of 
$2.90  was  of  course  based  J1  on  the  census  of  1903,  but  as  de- 
tailed attendance  figures  for  1903  are  not  available,  we  will  as- 
sume that  the  per-capita  amount  of  the  apportionment  remained 
unchanged,12  and  use  the  attendance  figures  for  1904.  On  a 
basis  of  54.1%  of  census  in  average  daily  attendance,  a  census 
apportionment  of  $2.90  is  worth  $5.36  if  apportioned  on  aver- 
age daily  attendance  instead  of  census.  This  is  equal  to  4%  cents 
a  day  per  pupil  for  a  six  months  school,  3%  cents  a  day  on  an 
eight  months  school,  and  2%  cents  a  day  on  a  nine  months  school. 
Making  the  proper  calculations,  we  get  the  next  table. 

TABLE  No.  52. 

COMPARING  THE  INCOME  OF  CERTAIN  INDIANA  CITIES   UNDER  THE  CENSUS  AND 
AVERAGE  DAILY  ATTENDANCE  BASES. 

(Calculated  for  1904  from  statistical  data  given  in  the  Rept.  Supt.  Pub. 
Instr.,  Ind.,  1904,  statistical  tables  7a  and  jc.) 

Amount  of  apportionment  on 
City  of.  Censns, 

b-2i  years. 

Adams  Co 1,234 


Av.  Dy.      Percent. 

Census, 

Av.  Dy.  Att. 

Att. 

®  $2.QO. 

&  $S-3t>- 

601          49% 

$3,578.60 

$3,221.36 

Wayne  below.) 

1,275          59% 

6,194.40 

6,834.00 

1,700         61% 

8,09I.OO 

9,112.00 

867         67% 

3,767.10 

4,649.12 

453          83% 

1,580.50 

2,428.08 

2,468          54% 

13,351.60 

14,228.48 

1,492          42% 

10,324.00 

7,997.12 

Bartholomew  Co 2,136 

Blackford  Co 2,790 

Boone  Co 1,299 

Carroll  Co 545 

Cass  Co 4,604 

Clark  Co 3,560 

Five    largest    cities   of 
the  State,  in  order. 

Indianapolis 43,650        21,726          50%        126,585.00        116,451.36 

Evansville 18,547          6,703          36%.          53,786.30          36,028.08 

Ft.  Wayne 14,141          4,659          33%          41,006.00          27,301.74 

Terre  Haute. 11,390          5,6ii          49%          33,044-6o          30,074.96 

South  Bend 15,17?          4,678          30%.          44,oi3-3Q          25,074.08 

11  See  footnote  12,  Chapter  IX,  for  calculations. 

12  This  will  not  affect  the  relative  amounts  or  the  percentages  of  gain  or 
loss.     Judging   from  the  gain  in   apportionment  during  recent  years,   the 
1905  apportionment,  based  on  the  census  of  1904,  would  increase  to  about 
$3.00  per  capita.     This  would  increase  the  average  daily  attendance  appor- 


The  Average  Daily  Attendance  Basis  163 

With  51.1%  of  census  in  average  daily  attendance  necessary  to 
neither  gain  nor  lose,  an  inspection  of  the  middle  column  of 
figures  indicates  at  a  glance  what  will  be  the  result.  The  last 
two  columns  show  how  closely  an  average  daily  attendance  basis 
of  apportionment  rewards  the  efforts  which  a  community  makes, 
and  punishes  a  community  for  what  it  does  not  do.  They  also 
reveal  something  of  the  injustice  of  the  census  basis  of  appor- 
tionment. A  comparison  of  this  table  with  Table  No.  39, 
Chapter  X,  and  Table  No.  51,  will  show  very  clearly  the  reason 
for  the  gains  and  losses  which  would  result  under  the  average 
daily  attendance  basis  of  apportionment.  To  do  this  better,  we 
compile  a  new  comparative  table  containing  the  important  per- 
centages for  each  of  the  above  cities,  and  add  on  the  percentage 
of  gain  or  loss  of  funds  shown  by  the  last  two  columns  of 
Table  No.  52.  Doing  this,  and  omitting  the  fractions  of  a  per 
cent.,  we  get  the  following  result : 

TABLE  No.  53. 

SHOWING    THE   REASONS    FOR    A   GAIN    OR   LOSS    IN    FUNDS    UNDER   AN    AVERAGE 
DAILY   ATTENDANCE  BASIS   OF  APPORTIONMENT  FOR  CERTAIN    INDIANA 

CITIES. 

(Compiled  from  Tables  Nos.  39,  47,  and  52,  and  by  calculation  from  the 
last  two  columns  of  Table  No.  52.) 

Per  cent  of  census.  Per  cent  of  Per  cent  of 

Cities  enrollment  in         gain  or  loss 

Enrolled.      InAv.Dy.Att.      Av.Dy.Att.  in  funds. 


I.  Which  would  gain. 

Boone  Co  

•  93% 

67% 

71% 

+23% 

Carroll  Co  

.  .89% 

83% 

94% 

+54% 

Blackford  Co  

•  83% 

61% 

73% 

4-13% 

Bartholomew  Co  

•  79%. 

59% 

75% 

+  13% 

Cass  Co  

•  65% 

54%. 

80% 

+  7% 

2.  Which  would  lose. 

Indianapolis  

68% 

50% 

73% 

—  8% 

Terre  Haute  

66% 

49% 

73% 

—  9% 

Adams  Co  

•  63% 

49% 

80% 

—10% 

Clark  Co  

•  55% 

42% 

75% 

—23% 

Evansville  

.  46% 

36% 

78% 

—33% 

Ft.  Wayne  

.  42% 

33% 

78% 

—34% 

South  Bend  

.  40% 

30% 

77% 

—43% 

The  first  column  of  figures  of  this  table  tells  the  whole  story. 
The  average  daily  attendance  of  those  enrolled  is  a  fairly  constant 

tionment  correspondingly  to  $5.54.     The  actual  amounts  apportioned  under 
both  bases  would  be  increased,  but  relatively  they  would  remain  unchanged. 


164  School  Funds  and  their  Apportionment 

quantity.  The  important  item  is  the  percentage  of  the  total 
census  which  the  schools  enroll.  If  this  is  high  the  cities  gain, 
if  it  is  low  they  lose.  In  using  average  daily  attendance  as 
a  basis  for  the  apportionment  of  school  funds,  the  state  con- 
sequently places  a  premium  on  a  much  more  important  item  than 
the  regular  attendance  of  those  enrolled,  which  might  at  first 
thought  seem  to  be  the  important  factor.  The  real  thing  to  be 
looked  after  is  the  enrollment,  and  in  placing  a  premium  on 
attendance,  the  school  has  also  placed  a  premium  on  enrollment 
as  well.  The  cities  which  would  gain  well  deserve  the  reward 
they  would  receive  for  the  work  they  do,  while  the  cities  which 
would  lose  ought  to  lose  some  of  the  money  which  they  now 
receive.  The  so-called  "  scholastic  population,"  based  on  the 
wide  age  limits,  is  a  most  inaccurate  basis  for  estimating  a  city's 
educational  needs.  A  city's  real  school  population  is  certainly  no 
larger  than  the  enrollment  in  its  schools.  A  city  with  a  school 
census  of  10,000  children  and  only  2,500  enrolled  in  the  public 
schools  is  only  half  as  large,  from  an  educational  point  of 
view,  as  another  city  with  a  school  census  of  10,000  and  with 
5,000  enrolled  in  the  public  schools.  If  the  deficit  in  enrollment 
is  not  in  school  at  all,  then  the  city  should  not  be  paid  for 
the  education  of  children  whom  it  does  not  teach;  if  the  missing 
children  are  being  taught  in  private  schools,  then  the  city 
should  not  be  paid  for  what  is  done  by  private  means.  The 
money  now  given  to  communities  for  what  they  do  not  do 
ought  to  be  taken  away  from  them  and  given  to  other  communi- 
ties which  make  a  greater  effort  and  h?ve  greater  needs.  This 
would  not  only  appear  to  be  just,  but  would  be  a  marked  ad- 
vance toward  the  equalization  of  the  burdens  and  the  advant- 
ages of  education.  If  a  community  wants  more  money  from 
the  state  apportionment  in  return  for  its  taxes  let  it  make  an 
effort  to  get  more  pupils  into  its  schools,  and  after  the  children 
are  once  in  the  schools  let  it  make  a  continuous  effort  to 
keep  them  there. 

But  while  the  average  daily  attendance  basis  has  many  decided 
advantages  for  the  apportionment  of  school  funds  over  any 
single  basis  of  apportionment  so  far  considered,  it  also,  if 
used  alone,  has  certain  important  defects  which  tend  to  limit 
its  use  as  a  single  basis  for  apportionment.  On  the  side  of  the 
small  country  school  it  is  practically  as  defective  as  the  census 


The  Average  Daily  Attendance  Basis  165 

basis  in  that  it  fails  to  provide  sufficient  funds  with  which  to 
maintain  a  school,  and  on  the  side  of  the  city  it  gives  no  re- 
cognition to  the  much  longer  term  of  school  which  the  cities 
usually  maintain. 

As  was  shown  in  Table  No.  24,  Chapter  IX,  the  small  country 
school  suffers  seriously  under  the  census  basis  of  apportionment. 
It  is  not  until  after  the  enrollment  is  large  enough  for  two  teach- 
ers that  the  income  on  census  apportionment  is  large  enough  to 
enable  poor  communities  to  pay  for  one.  As  was  further  shown 
by  Table  No.  48,  the  amount  received  by  small  schools  under  a 
total  enrollment,  a  forty-day  enrollment,  or  an  average  daily  at- 
tendance basis  of  apportionment,  while  not  less  than  under  the 
census  basis,  would  still  be  no  greater.  Under  any  one  of  the 
four  bases  of  distribution,  a  school  with  a  census  of  twenty- 
three  and  an  enrollment  of  fifteen  would  receive  only  about  $42.00 
from  the  state  on  the  basis  of  the  Wisconsin  census  apportion- 
ment for  1903-04  of  $1.82^  per-capita.  A  school  with  a  census 
of  forty-six  and  an  enrollment  of  thirty  Would  of  course  receive 
twice  as  much  under  any  of  the  four  bases  of  apportionment. 
Neither  amount,  as  was  pointed  out  in  discussing  the  census  basis 
of  apportionment,  is  sufficient  to  render  any  very  material  aid 
to  a  poor  community,  and  there  is  no  educational  reason  why 
one  school  should  receive  twice  as  much  as  the  other.  The  cost 
of  teaching  fifteen  pupils  in  a  school  is  practically  the  same  as 
that  of  teaching  thirty.  If  a  better  teacher  is  employed  in 
the  larger  school  than  in  the  smaller,  it  is  because  there  is  more 
money  with  which  to  pay  a  better  teacher  rather  than  because  a 
better  teacher  is  needed.  The  average  daily  attendance  basis 
of  apportionment,  while  based  upon  better  educational  grounds 
and  much  more  just  in  many  ways  than  any  single  basis  so  far 
considered,  still  offers  no  financial  relief  to  the  small  and  over- 
taxed country  district.  In  combination  with  other  bases,  as  will 
be  pointed  out  in  a  succeeding  chapter,  the  average  daily  at- 
tendance basis  may  be  used  to  very  great  advantage,  but  alone 
it  contains  the  same  elements  of  injustice  toward  the  small  coun- 
try district  as  the  census  basis  of  apportionment. 

In  the  preceding  pages  we  have  indicated  the  important  ad- 
vantages which  the  average  daily  attendance  basis  of  apportion- 
ment has,  and  we  have  shown  how  the  use  of  this  basis  of  appor- 
tionment places  a  premium  on  a  large  number  of  important  edu- 


1 66  School  Funds  and  their  Apportionment 

cational  efforts,  which,  if  made  by  a  community,  tend  to  much 
more  firmly  establish  the  public  school  system  in  the  public  es- 
teem. The  three  or  four  cents  a  day  received  for  each  pupil 
from  the  state  are  of  far  less  value  to  a  town  or  a  city  than  the 
other  gains  which  come  from  the  efforts  made  to  win  the  in- 
crease. In  all  these  respects  the  average  daily  attendance  basis 
is  much  superior  to  any  single  basis  of  apportionment  so  far  con- 
sidered. 

There  is,  however,  one  very  important  educational  effort  to 
be  made  by  a  community  which  the  average  daily  attendance 
basis  of  apportionment,  in  common  with  all  the  other  bases  of 
apportionment  so  far  considered,  not  only  entirely  disregards 
but  tends  to  place  a  premium  against, — that  is,  an  effort  to 
lengthen  the  school  term.  It  is  a  common  experience  to  have 
the  school  attendance  decrease  very  materially  during  the  spring 
months,  and  every  child  who  leaves  school  for  any  purpose  while 
the  school  remains  in  session  cuts  down  the  average  daily  at- 
tendance for  the  year.  The  schools  A,  B,  C,  and  D,  given  in 
the  preceding  chapter  (Table  No.  44,  Chapter  X)  to  illustrate 
average  membership,  illustrate  the  point  for  average  daily  at- 
tendance equally  well.  All  that  is  necessary  is  to  assume  that 
the  figures  used  in  Table  No.  44  now  mean  the  number  in 
average  daily  attendance  each  month  instead  of  in  average  mem- 
bership. We  also  assume  that  the  school  census  in  each  dis- 
trict is  the  same.  Doing  this,  and  bringing  the  table  forward, 
we  get  the  following  result. 

TABLE  No.  54- 

AVERAGE   DAILY   ATTENDANCE  IN    FOUR  DIFFERENT    SCHOOLS    COMPARED. 

Month                               School  A.  School  B.  School  C.  School  D. 

First 96"  83  96  94 

Second 97  88  98  90 

Third 94  94  9°  81 

Fourth 92  98  83  70 

Fifth 88  95  79  70 

Sixth 86  94  7&  57 

Av.  Dy.  Att.  for  year13...       92  92  87  77 
Income  per  school  @  $3.00 

per  pupil  in  Av.  Dy.  Att. ..  $276.00  $276.00  $261.00  $231.00 

13  As  in  the  preceding  similar  table  (Table  No.  44),  these  averages  are 
only  the  arithmetical  averages  for  the  different  months.  Practically  there 
would  be  a  slight  difference  between  these  and  the  actual  average  daily 


The  Average  Daily  Attendance  Basis  167 

Schools  A  and  B  could  continue,  apparently,  for  another  month 
with  but  very  slight  loss,  and  School  B  might  actually  gain  by 
doing  so.  On  the  other  hand,  Schools  C  and  D  would  have  re- 
ceived more  money  from  the  state  had  they  closed  their  schools 
at  the  end  of  the  fourth  month,  and  would  also  have  saved  two 
months  of  teachers'  salary  each.  If  all  the  schools  had  closed 
at  the  end  of  the  fourth  month  the  results  would  have  been : 

School  A.      School  B.      School  C.      School  D. 

Average  daily  attendance. ..       95  91  92  84 

Income  from  state $285.00  $273.00  $276.00  $252.00 

Let  us  now  assume  that  all  four  schools  continue  to  provide  a 
nine  months  term,  and  that  Schools  A  and  B  each  lose  four 
pupils  in  average  daily  attendance  for  each  of  the  three  remaining 
months,  that  School  C  remains  stationary,  and  that  School  D 
gains  four  pupils  each  month.  The  result  then  is  as  follows : 

Month  School  A.      School  B.      School  C.      School  D. 

Seventh 81  90  76  61 

Eighth 77  86  76  65 

Ninth 73  82  76  69 

Av.  Dy.  Att.  for  year 87  90  83  73 

Income  from  state $261.00  $270.00  $249.00  $219.00 

\ 

School  B  would  lose  little,  due  to  its  having  started  with  a  low 
enrollment,  but  School  A  would  receive  the  same  amount  for 
nine  months  as  School  C  for  six  months,  though  it  had  a  much 
higher  percentage  of  its  census  in  average  daily  attendance,  had 
within  three  of  as  many  pupils  at  the  end  of  the  ninth  month  as 
School  C  had  at  the  end  of  the  sixth  month,  and  paid  its 
teachers  for  nine  months  instead  of  six,  which  necessitated  a 
much  larger  local  tax  on  an  equivalent  valuation.  Nothwith- 
standing  its  much  greater  efforts  its  rewards  are  the  same. 
Still  further,  had  School  C  closed  at  the  end  of  the  fourth 
month,  it  would  have  received  the  same  amount  as  School  A 
for  six  months  and  $15.00  more  than  School  A  for  nine  months. 
Such  a  condition  as  this  is  obviously  unjust  and  tends  to  dis- 
courage one  of  the  most  important  efforts  made  by  a  community. 
It  tends  to  discourage  efforts  to  lengthen  the  term  and  tends  to 
cause  communities  to  determine  what  school  facilities  shall  be 

attendance  for  the  year  obtained  by  careful  counting  at  the  end  of  the 
year,  but  for  illustrative  purposes  the  difference  is  negligible. 


168  School  Funds  and  their  Apportionment 

provided  'by  what  the  great  majority  of  the  parents  seem  to 
want.  As  soon  as  the  school  attendance  begins  to  decrease,  the 
tendency  is  to  close  the  school  to  save  both  local  taxes  and  a  loss 
from  state  income.  It  ought  to  be  just  the  opposite.  As  long 
as  a  community  is  willing  to  pay  taxes  to  continue  its  schools, 
the  state  ought  to  be  willing  to  give  aid  in  proportion.  Under 
the  average  daily  attendance  basis  alone,  the  state  does  exactly 
the  reverse.  This  may  be  shown  by  calculating  what  the  $3.00 
per  year  per  pupil  in  average  daily  attendance,  assumed  above, 
would  be  worth  for  various  lengths  of  terms  of  school.  Making 
the  calculations  we  get  the  following  values  per  pupil  in  average 
daily  attendance  on  a  $3.00  per-capita  apportionment,  if  the 
length  of  term  is  disregarded. 

TABLE  No.  55. 

VALUE  OF  AN    AVERAGE  DAILY   ATTENDANCE  GRANT  OF  $3-OO  PER   PUPIL  FOR 
VARIOUS    LENGTHS    OF   SCHOOL   TERM. 

For  a  3  months'  school,  50.  per  pupil  per  day. 
For  a  4  months'  school,  3^c.  per  pupil  per  day. 
For  a  5  months'  school,  3c.  per  pupil  per  day. 
For  a  6  months'  school,  2l/2c.  per  pupil  per  day. 
For  a  7  months'  school,  2^-c.  per  pupil  per  day. 
For  an  8  months'  school,  i^c.  per  pupil  per  day. 
For  a  9  months'  school,  i%c.  per  pupil  per  day. 
For  a  10  months'  school,  i^c.  per  pupil  per  day. 

Any  increase  or  decrease  in  the  size  of  the  per-capita  apportion- 
ment would  increase  or  decrease  the  above  figures  actually,  but 
would  not  change  their  proportions  relatively.  If  the  state  con- 
siders it  worth  five  cents  a  day  to  teach  a  pupil  for  three  months, 
it  ought  equally  to  consider  it  worth  five  cents  a  day  to  teach  the 
pupil  nine  or  ten  months. 

The  larger  the  per-capita  apportionment,  or  the  greater  the 
difference  in  the  length  of  term  between  country  districts  and 
cities,  the  greater  will  be  the  resulting  inequalities  and  the  more 
unjust  will  be  the  result.  If  the  state  apportionment  on  average 
daily  attendance  is  small,  as  would  be  the  case  in  Kansas  (about 
$i.6o),14  or  in  Missouri  ($2.80), 15  the  inequalities  would  not 

14  This  is  only  approximate,  based  on  an  estimate  of  about  fifty  per  cent 
of  census  in  average  daily  attendance,  and  the  State  apportionment  of  82C. 
for  1904.     It  cannot  be  calculated  exactly  for  the  whole   State,  because 
actual  figures  as  to  average  daily  attendance  are  lacking  from  a  number 
of  the  cities. 

15  For  1903-04,  see  Table  No.  33,  Ch.  IX. 


The  Average  Daily  Attendance  Basis  169 

be  so  great  as  where  it  is  large,  as  would  foe  the  case  in  Texas 
($848), 16  in  California  ($17.87), 17  or  in  Montana  ($20.23), 58 
Again,  where  the  inequalities  between  districts  in  length  of  term 
are  small,  as  in  Connecticut,  where  the  length  of  term  required 
by  law  for  all  schools  is  nine  months,19  and  the  average  for  the 
State  is  about  nine  and  one-half  months,20  the  inequalities  would 
be  much  less  than  in  Washington,  where  the  required  term  is 
five  months  for  districts  and  six  months  for  towns  and  cities,21 
and  where  the  state  average  for  1903-04  was  six  and  seven-tenths 
months.22  Still  more  do  these  inequalities  exist  in  Oregon,  where 
the  length  of  term  for  the  different  districts  of  the  State  for 
1901-02  were  as  follows:23 

3  months,  239  districts.  8  months,  265  districts. 

4  "          130  9        "         300 

5  297  10  181 

6  "         329  ii        "  36 

7  "         256  12        "  13 

Whatever  may  be  the  results  in  certain  individual  cases,  it  is 
theoretically  worth  more  to  the  state  to  have  communities  pro- 
vide school  facilities  for  a  reasonably  long  time  than  for  a  short 
time,  and  a  premium  rather  than  a  penalty  ought  to  be  placed 
on  efforts  in  that  direction.  Theoretically,  the  pupil  who  wants 
to  go  to  school  for  nine  or  ten  months  each  year  will  be  worth 
more  to  the  state  than  the  pupil  who  wants  to  go  to  school  for 

16  Calculated  for  the  year  1902-03   from  data  given   in  a  pamphlet  on 
Public  Education  in  Texas,  issued  by  the  Superintendent  of  Public  Instruc- 
tion.    School  census,  8-17  years,  759,358;  average  daily  attendance,  444,669; 
per  capita  State  apportionment  on  census,  $5.00.     This  gives  an  average 
daily  attendance  of  59%  of  census  and  a  State  apportionment  on  average 
daily  attendance  of  $8.48. 

17  For  1904,  see  Table  No.  34,  Ch.  IX. 

18  For  1901-02,  see  Table  No.  50,  Ch.  XI. 

19  "Public  schools  shall  be  maintained  for  at  least  thirty-six  weeks  in 
each  year  in  every  town  and  school  district."     Conn.  Gen.  Stat.,  Ch.  131, 
p.  561,  Sec.  2130. 

20  An.  Rept.  Conn.  Bd,  Educ.,  1903,  p.  306. 

21  Wash.   Code   of  Pub.   Instr.   of   1897,   Title   III,    Ch.    I,   Sec.   70,   as 
amended  by  Wash.  Ses.  Laws  of  1903,  Sec.  23,  p.  179. 

22  17  th  Bien.  Rept.  Supt.  Pub.  Instr.,  Wash.,  1904,  p.  33. 

23  Bien.  Rept.  Supt.  Pub.  Instr.,  Ore.,  1902,  p.  237. 


170  School  Funds  and  their  Apportionment 

but  four  or  five,  and  the  state  should  encourage  communities  to 
make  proper  provision  for  such  pupils,  even  though  they  may  be 
a  minority,  by  making  the  length  of  term  provided  an  item  in 
the  determination  of  the  amount  of  money  paid  to  a  community. 
It  has  been  attempted  to  remedy  this  defect  by  what  is  com- 
monly known  as : 

THE    AGGREGATE    DAYS    OF    ATTENDANCE    BASIS. 

Two  methods  may  be  employed.  One  method  is  to  add  up  the 
total  number  of  days  of  attendance  for  every  school  and  divide 
the  total  amount  to  be  apportioned  by  this  sum,  which  will  give 
the  number  of  cents  per  pupil  per  day,  from  which  the  total  ap- 
portionment of  any  district  may  be  determined  by  multiplying  the 
amount  per  pupil  per  day  by  the  total  (aggregate)  number  of 
days  of  attendance  in  the  district.  The  other  method  is  to 
calculate  the  average  daily  attendance  for  each  school,  as  pre- 
viously described,  and  then  multiply  this  by  the  number  of 
days  the  school  was  kept  open.  The  first  method  is  much 
simpler  from  the  standpoint  of  state  book-keeping.  The  appor- 
tionment from  state  to  county  and  county  to  district  can  be  made 
directly  on  the  total  number  of  days  of  attendance  for  the  year 
in  each.  It  has  been  adopted,  as  a  basis  for  the  apportionment 
of  state  funds,  by  the  State  of  Washington; 24  as  a  partial  basis 
for  the  apportionment  of  county  funds  by  the  states  of  New 
York25  and  New  Jersey;26  as  a  basis  for  the  state  apportion- 

24  The   State   Superintendent  of   Public   Instruction   shall   apportion  the 
State  school  fund   (income  and  tax)    "among  the  several  counties  of  the 
State  (and  thence  to  the  districts)  in  proportion  to  the  total  days'  attend- 
ance ;  Provided,   that  each   school   district  shall  be  credited  with  at  least 
two  thousand  days  attendance."     Wash.  Code  of  Pub.  Instr.,  1897,  Title  II, 
Ch.  2,  Sec.  22,  div.  gth. 

25  "They   (the  County  Commissioners)   shall  apportion  all  such  remain- 
ing unapportioned  school  moneys    (after  having  made  the  various  appor- 
tionments on  the  other  bases  as  required  by  the  law)   in  like  manner  and 
upon  the  same  basis  among  such  school  districts,  and  portions  of  districts, 
in  proportion  to  the  aggregate  number  of  days  of  attendance  of  the  pupils 
resident  therein,   between  the   ages  of   five   and   eighteen  years,   at  their 
respective  schools  during  the  last  preceding  school  year,  and  also  such  chil- 
dren residing  therein  over  four  years  of  age  who  shall  have  attended  any 
free  kindergarten  school  legally  established."     Consol.  School  Laws  of  New 
York,  Title  II,  Art.  2,  Sec.  6,  as  amended  by  Laws  of  1896,  Ch.  264,  Sec.  2. 

26  "He   (the  County  Superintendent  of  Schools)   shall  apportion  to  the 


The  Aggregate  Days  Attendance  Basis  171 

ment  of  the  $200,000  of  income  from  the  state  school  fund 
in  New  Jersey;27  and  as  the  basis  for  the  division  of  school 
funds  between  a  town  and  a  special  district  incorporated  within 
a  town  in  the  State  of  Vermont.28 

It  will  be  evident  that  with  this  addition,  the  attendance  basis 
of  apportionment  takes  into  proper  consideration  the  various  ef- 
forts which  a  community  makes  to  increase  its  school  attend- 
ance and  to  lengthen  its  school  term.  The  inclusion  of  the 
length-of-term  element  in  the  calculation  as  to  the  amount  of 
apportionment  to  be  given  to  a  district,  town,  or  city,  makes  the 
method  appear  to  be  just  to  all.  In  combination  with  an  appor- 
tionment basis  which  makes  some  definite  provision  for  the 
small  school  by  recognizing  the  teacher-basis  as  well,  the  aggre- 
gate attendance  method  would  be  the  most  thoroughly  just  basis 
of  apportionment  we  have  so  far  considered.  The  cities  would 
receive  a  proper  reward  for  their  longer  term,  as  they  should, 
and  the  towns  and  country  districts  would  be  encouraged  to 
make  an  effort  to  approach  nearer  the  length  of  term  provided 
by  the  cities. 

several  school  districts  of  the  county  the  remainder  of  said  moneys  (after 
having  made  the  various  apportionments  on  the  other  bases  as  required  by 
the  law)  on  the  basis  of  the  total  days'  attendance  of  all  pupils  enrolled 
in  the  public  schools  thereof  as  ascertained  from  the  last  published  report 
of  the  State  Superintendent  of  Public  Instruction.  For  the  purpose  of 
such  apportionment,  an  attendance  upon  an  evening  school  shall  be  counted 
as  one-half  day's  attendance."  School  Laws  of  New  Jersey,  as  enacted  by 
the  2d  Sp.  Ses.  of  the  I27th  Leg.,  and  approved  Oct.  ipth,  1903,  Ch.  I, 
Art.  XVII,  Sec.  182,  div.  II. 

27  "The  State  Superintendent  of  Public  Instruction  shall  equitably  ap- 
portion to  the  several  counties  the  amount  apportioned  for  the  support  of 
public  schools  from  the  State  School  Fund  on  the  basis  of  the  aggregate 
number  of  days  attendance  of  all  pupils  attending  the  public  schools  during 
the  year  preceding  that  for  which  the  apportionment  shall  be  made."     Ibid., 
Ch.  I,  Art.  II,  Sec.  16. 

28  "The  Selectmen  of  a  town  having  within  its  limits  a  district  incor- 
porated by  a  special  act  of  the  general  assembly,  or  a  part  of  such  a  dis- 
trict, shall  annually  .  .  .  divide  the  public  school  moneys  between  the  town 
district  and  the  incorporated  district  as  follows : 

"The  share  of  the  State  school  tax  .  .  .  shall  be  divided  in  proportion 
to  the  number  of  legal  schools  maintained  in  each  district ;  all  other  school 
moneys  shall  be  divided "  in  proportion  to  the  aggregate  attendance  in 
each.  Vermont  Statutes  of  1894,  Ch.  45,  Sec.  848,  as  amended  by  the  Ses. 
Laws  of  1900,  No.  19,  Sec.  i. 


172 


School  Funds  and  their  Apportionment 


The  working  of  such  a  method  of  apportionment  used  alone 
can  be  shown  by  returning  to  the  illustration  of  the  effect  of 
lengthening  the  term  on  the  average  daily  attendance  and  income 
of  four  schools,  A,  B,  C,  and  D,  used  on  a  preceding  page  (Table 
No.  54) .  To  do  this  in  a  simple  manner  let  us  use  the  method  of 
multiplying  the  average  daily  attendance  by  the  length  of  term. 
To  do  this  let  us  assume  that  the  state  apportionment  would 
average  2.50.  per  day  per  pupil.  This  would  be  equal  to  5oc.  a 
month,  or  $2.00  per  pupil  for  a  four  months  term,  $3.00  per  pupil 
for  a  six  months'  term,  and  $4.50  per  pupil  for  a  nine  months' 
term.  To  compare  the  results  of  the  two  methods  of  apportion- 
ment, let  us  first  bring  forward  the  results  of  the  calculations  for 
these  schools  under  an  average  daily  attendance  apportion- 
ment basis,  at  the  $3.00  per  pupil  per  year  rate  previously  used, 
and  then  below  these  figures  place  similar  calculations  to  show 
the  results  under  an  average  daily  attendance  multiplied  by 
length  of  term  basis.  Doing  this  and  calculating,  we  get  the 
following  result: 

TABLE  No.  56. 

AVERAGE   AND   TOTAL  ATTENDANCE   GRANTS    IN    FOUR   DIFFERENT    SCHOOLS 

COMPARED. 


School  A. 
Av.  Dy.  Att.  basis— 

4  months'  term $285.00 

6  months'  term 276.00 

9  months'  term 261.00 

Av.  Dy.  Att.   multiplied  by 
length  of  term  basis — 

4  months'  term 190.00 

6  months'  term 276.00 

9  months'  term 391.50 


School  B.      School  C.      School  D. 


$273-00 
276.00 
271.00 


$276.00 
261.00 
249.00 


$252.00 
231.00 
219.00 


182.00  184.00  168.00 

276.00  261.00  231.00 

405-00  373-50  328.50 


This  comparative  table  shows  how  much  more  closely  the 
amount  awarded  by  the  state  corresponds  to  the  educational 
efforts  made  by  a  community  when  length  of  term  is  considered. 
Similar  results  could  be  shown  by  an  illustration  using  the  aggre- 
gate number  of  days  of  attendance.  This  basis  is  not  only  much 
more  just  than  any  previous  basis  considered,  but  would  seem  to 
be  more  in  the  direction  of  an  equalization  of  the  burdens  and 
advantages  of  education.  The  state  agrees  to  pay  doubly:  it 


The  Aggregate  Days  Attendance  Basis  173 

agrees  to  pay  for  every  pupil  in  attendance,  and  also  for  every 
day  the  pupil  has  the  opportunity  to  remain  in  attendance. 

It  will  be  obvious  at  once  that  this  method,  though  theore- 
tically much  more  just,  would  give  the  cities,  if  used  singly  and 
alone  as  a  basis  for  the  apportionment  of  funds,  a  still  greater 
advantage  over  the  small  country  districts  than  they  have  at 
present.  By  reason  of  their  longer  term  of  school  and  the  much 
smaller  number  of  teachers  needed  for  every  thousand  children, 
they  would  draw  such  a  large  proportion  of  the  state  appor- 
tionment that  the  country  districts  would  be  more  seriously  handi- 
capped for  want  of  funds  than  they  are  to-day  under  the  census 
basis  of  apportionment.  This  may  be  illustrated  by  comparing 
the  income  per  teacher  employed  in  a  small  country  school  in 
Adams  County,  Indiana,  with  the  income  per  teacher  in  the 
city  of  Indianapolis.  The  percentage  of  census  enrolled  in  each 
was  the  same,29  68%,  and  the  percentage  of  the  enrollment  in 
average  daily  attendance  was  also  practically  the  same,30  being 
74%  for  the  country  schools  of  Adams  County  and  73%  in  the 
city  of  Indianapolis.  The  per-capita  on  census  apportionment  of 
$2.90  was  equal,  as  we  have  previously  shown,31  to  $5.36  on 
average  daily  attendance  for  1903-04.  As  nearly  as  can  be 
estimated,  using  the  arithmetical  averages  for  length  of  term, 
this  is  equal  to  approximately  three  and  one-half  cents  per  pupil 
per  day.  Assuming  it  to  be  this  amount  and  calculating,  we  get 
the  following  comparison  of  a  city  and  a  small  country  school 
when  the  conditions  as  to  enrollment  and  attendance  are  the  same : 

TABLE  No.  57. 

INCOME   OF   A    CITY    SCHOOL  AND   A    SMALL   COUNTRY   SCHOOL   COMPARED    UNDER 

THE   CENSUS,   AVERAGE   DAILY   ATTENDANCE,   AND   AGGREGATE   DAYS' 

ATTENDANCE   BASES. 

School.  Census        Enrollment.         Av.Dy.Att.  Term. 

Country 29  20  14.5  127  days. 

City 73  50  36.5  200     " 

Value  of  State  apportionment  on 

School.  Census        Av.  Dy.  Alt.        Av.  Dy.  Att.  X  term  @  Jj^c. 

@  $2.90.          @  $5.36.  per  pupil  per  day. 

Country $84.10  $77-72  14.5  X  I27  X  -°3H  =  $64-45 

City 211. 70  195.64  36.5  X  200  X  -°3^  =  256.30 


174    ,  School  Funds  and  their  Apportionment 

Excellent  as  this  basis  for  apportionment  is  in  most  respects,  it 
is  evident  that  it  would  be  much  worse  than  the  census  basis  of 
apportionment  in  its  results,  if  used  singly  and  alone.  This  will 
be  still  more  evident  when  one  recalls  that  the  taxable  valuation 
per  teacher  employed  in  Indianapolis  is  at  least  three  or  four 
times  as  great  as  in  the  country  districts  of  Adams  County. 
Instead  of  an  advance  toward  an  equalization  of  the  burdens  and 
the  opportunities  of  education,  it  would  be  a  decided  step  in  the 
opposite  direction.  With  some  provision  made  which  would 
first  secure  a  reasonable  allowance  for  every  school  or  teacher 
employed,  and  then  a  distribution  of  the  remainder  on  the  basis 
of  aggregate  attendance,  this  method  is  one  of  the  best  that 
has  been  evolved,  but  without  the  previous  provision  for  the 
small  country  school  it  would  be  ruinous  to  many  a  district. 

This  the  State  of  Washington  has  attempted  to  make  by  pro- 
viding that  "  each  school  district  shall  be  credited  with  at  least 
2,000  days  attendance."  32  As  the  Washington  state  apportion- 
ment for  1903-04  was  worth  about  8^4  cents  a  day,33  this  in- 
sured $175.00  at  least  to  every  district  for  that  year,  however 
small  the  district  might  be  or  however  short  its  term  of  school. 
The  preceding  year  the  attendance  was  about  two  million  days 
less,  the  amount  of  money  to  be  apportioned  about  the  same, 
and  the  income  was  equal  to  about  9^  cents  a  day,  or  a  minimum 
amount  of  about  $195.00.  In  a  succeeding  chapter  it  will  be 
shown  how  a  basis  of  apportionment  having  so  many  good  fea- 
tures as  the  aggregate  attendance  basis  can  be  made  usable  by 
combining  it  with  some  other  apportionment  basis  and  thus 
making  it  just. 

In  using  this  basis  of  apportionment,  an  allowance  ought  al- 
ways to  be  made  for  the  effect  of  those  influences  which  seri- 
ously cut  down  the  attendance,  but  over  which  the  school  au* 

29  See  Table  No.  39,  Chapter  X. 
3°  See  Table  No.  47,  Chapter  XI. 

31  See  Table  No.  52,  Chapter  XL 

32  See  footnote  24  of  this  chapter. 

88  Calculated  from  statistical  data  in  the  ifth  Bien.  Kept.  Supt.  Pub. 
Instr.,  Wash.,  1904,  pp.  32,  39,  9,  15. 


The  Aggregate  Days  Attendance  Basis  175 

thorities  have  no  control,  such  as  the  closing  of  the  schools  for 
institutes,  the  teachers  being  paid  for  attendance,  and  the  effects 
of  fires,  epidemics,  etc.  This  is  easily  arranged  for,  as  may  be 
shown  by  a  few  quotations.  In  Washington,  the  State  law 
provides  for  an  allowance  for  teachers'  institutes,  as  follows : 

"  When  the  teachers'  institute  is  held  during  the  time  when  a  teacher 
is  employed  in  teaching,  his  pay  shall  not  be  diminished  by  reason  of  his 
attendance,  when  certified  to  by  the  County  Superintendent,  and  in  addi- 
tion to  the  actual  attendance  earned  by  the  district,  an  additional  attend- 
ance shall  be  credited  to  the  district,  determined  by  multiplying  the  average 
-daily  attendance  for  the  term  by  the  number  of  days  the  teacher  attended 
the  institute."  34 

In  New  Jersey,  the  State  law  and  the  rules  of  the  State  Board 
of  Education  provide  for  unexpected  dosing  of  schools,  epidemics, 
quarantined  pupils,  etc.,  as  follows : 

"  If  a  school  in  any  district  shall,  on  account  of  contagious  disease,  de- 
struction of  the  school-house  by  fire  or  otherwise,  or  for  other  good 
reasons,  be  closed,  for  the  purpose  of  this  apportionment,  such  school  sf&ll 
be  deemed  to  have  been  in  session,  and  the  total  days'  attendance  upon 
such  school  for  the  time  it  shall  have  been  closed  as  aforesaid  shall  be 
determined  by  dividing  the  actual  total  days'  attendance  of  the  pupils  en- 
rolled in  such  school  by  the  number  of  days  such  school  shall  have  been 
actually  in  session,  and  multiplying  the  quotient  thus  obtained  by  the  num- 
foer  of  school  days  such  school  shall  have  been  closed."  85 

"Whenever  a  dwelling  shall  be  quarantined  by  order  of  the  Board  of 
Health,  .  .  .  children  residing  in  the  building  quarantined  who  shall  be 
actually  on  roll  in  the  school  at  the  time  the  building  shall  be  quarantined, 
excepting  children  who  are  ill,  shall  be  counted  as  present  during  the  time 
the  building  shall  be  quarantined.  The  allowance  for  attendance  lost  by 
pupils  quarantined  will  be  added  to  the  total  attendance  of  the  district  by 
the  State  Superintendent  of  Public  Instruction  at  the  end  of  the  school 
year."  3« 

These  additions  eliminate  the  chief  objections  to  an  aggregate 
days'  attendance  basis  which  are  commonly  urged. 

34  Wash.   Code   of  Pub.   Instr.   of   1897,   Title  III,   Ch.   4,   Sec.    102,  as 
amended  by  Ses.  Laws  of  1897,  Sec.  17,  p.  320. 

35  School  Laws  of  New  Jersey,  as  enacted  by  the  2d  Sp.  Sess.   I27th 
Leg.,  and  approved  Oct.  19,  1903;  Ch.  I,  Art.  XVII,  Sec.  182,  div.  II. 

86  Rules  and  Regulations  prescribed  by  the  State  Board  of  Education, 
No.  60.  New  Jersey  School  Law  of  1903,  p.  125. 


CHAPTER  XII 
THE  DISTRICT  AND  THE  TEACHER  BASIS 

WE  have  pointed  out  quite  fully  in  the  preceding  chapters, 
and  have  shown  in  detail  by  Table  48,  Chapter  XI,  that  any  single 
basis  of  apportionment  so  far  considered,  however  meritorious  it 
may  be  in  other  respects,  will  fail  to  provide  a  sufficient  amount 
of  money  for  the  needs  of  the  small  school.  To  remedy  this  de- 
fect it  has  been  proposed  to  make  the  school  district  or  the  teacher 
the  basis  of  apportionment,  wholly  or  in  part. 

THE    SCHOOL   DISTRICT    AS   A    BASIS 

It  will  be  obvious  at  once  that  the  school  district  could  not  be 
made  the  sole  basis  of  apportionment,  unless  all  districts  were 
srj  all  single-teacher  districts,  without  gross  injustice  to  all  larger 
districts ;  hence  the  method  has  no  possibilities  of  practical  appli- 
cation except  in  combination  with  other  plans.  In  combination 
with  other  plans,  however,  it  has  been  used  in  four  Western 
states  and  one  territory  and  proposed  in  a  few  others,  and  de- 
serves some  theoretical  consideration.  The  essential  idea  in  the 
plan  is  to  provide  a  means  by  which  the  small  school  shall  re- 
ceive a  larger  sum  than  it  would  receive  under  a  simple  census  or 
attendance  basis  of  apportionment.  In  this  lies  its  chief  merit. 
To  accomplish  this  result  a  division  of  a  portion  of  the  fund 
to  be  distributed  is  first  made  equally  to  each  district,  with- 
out regard  to  size,  and  then  the  balance  of  the  fund  is  appor- 
tioned on  census,  attendance,  or  whatever  other  basis  may  be 
provided  by  law.  In  the  four  states  and  one  territory  in  which 
the  method  is  used,  Oregon,  Wyoming,  Nebraska,  Idaho,  and 
Arizona,  the  state  apportionment  is  made  to  the  counties  on 
census  alone.  This  involves  all  the  inequalities  of  the  census 
method.  The  "  district  quota  "  is  first  set  aside  in  making  the 
county  apportionment,  and  then  the  balance  remaining  is  appor- 
tioned to  the  districts  on  census.  In  Oregon  x  each  district  first 

1  Oregon  School  Laws,  published  by  authority  of  Senate  Joint  Resolu- 
tion No.  6,  1903,  Title  I,  Art.  3,  Sec.  20,  div.  3. 

(176) 


The  School  District  Basis  177 

receives  $50.00;  in  Wyoming,2  $150.00;  in  Nebraska  3  one-fourth 
of  the  county  apportionment  is  first  divided  equally  to  all  dis- 
tricts ;  in  Idaho  4  one-third  is  first  so  divided ;  and  in  Arizona  8 
each  district  first  receives  $400.00  if  it  has  a  census  of  more 
than  ten  and  less  than  twenty,  and  $500.00  if  it  has  a  census  of 
twenty  or  more.  City  and  country  districts  fare  alike  on  this 
first  "  district  quota  "  division,  the  cities  making  up  for  the  loss 
by  what  they  receive  under  the  census  basis  of  apportioning  the 
balance.  This  tends  greatly  to  equalize  the  advantages  of  term 
and  teacher  to  the  country  districts  of  each  county  by  giving 
them  an  apportionment  more  nearly  proportional  to  that  given- 
to  the  cities. 

The  county,  though,  is  only  a  half-way  stage  in  the  process  of 
evolving  a  better  system.  If  this  "  district  quota  "  method  of 
equalizing  the  census  apportionment  is  to  be  retained,  the  change 
ought  to  be  made  from  the  county  unit  to  the  state  as  a  whole 
wherever  possible.  In  a  county  containing  a  large  city  the  small 
schools  will  fare  very  well  under  this  basis  of  apportionment,  but 
an  essentially  rural  county,  with  only  a  number  of  small  schools, 
would  have  very  little  money  left  to  apportion  after  making  the 
first  division  to  each  district,  unless  the  state  and  county  funds 
were  relatively  large.  This  may  be  illustrated  very  well  by  the 
state  of  Oregon,  whose  apportionment  plan  we  have  just  outlined. 
The  value  of  the  state  apportionment  for  1904  per  teacher  em- 
ployed and  per  district  for  four  selected  counties,  two  being  large 
counties  and  two  being  small  counties,  was  as  follows : 

County*          Districts.  Teachers.  Average  Value  of  State  Appt. 

1903.  1903.  Per  District.      Per  Teacher. 

Multnomah 60  449  $750.90                $100.34 

Umatilla 105  135  106.28                   82.66 

Klamath 31  50  60.28                   37.37 

Morrow 46  58  59.65                    47.31 

*  Calculated  from  data  in  Kept.  Supt.  Pub.  Instr.,  Ore.,  1905,  pp.  37,  41,  51, 

The  amount  remaining  to  be  apportioned  on  census  would  be 
large  in  Multnomah  County,  but  in  Klamath  and  Morrow  coun- 

2  Wyoming  Rev.  Statutes  of  1899,  Div.  I,  Title  10,  Ch.  10,  Sec.  1193, 
8  The  School  and  Land  Laws  of  Nebraska,  1903,  Subdiv.  n,  Sec.  4, 
4  General  School  Laws  of  Idaho,  1903,  p.  37. 

8  "An  Act  to  revise  and  codify  the  laws  of  Arizona,"  Approved  March 
15,  1901 ;  Title  17,  Ch.  16,  Sec.  128,  div.  I. 


178  School  Funds  and  their  Apportionment 

ties  there  would  be  but  little  left  to  distribute  after  making  the 
$50  per  district  grant. 

It  is  probable  that  the  "  district  quota  "  could  be  so  propor- 
tioned and  used  as  a  partial  basis  in  making  the  state  apportion- 
ment as  to  give  somewhat  equitable  results  throughout  a  state  as 
a  whole.  Such  a  combination  plan  certainly  would  provide  the 
small  country  district  with  a  larger  sum  of  money  with  which  to 
maintain  a  school  than  would  be  possible  under  the  census,  en- 
rollment, or  attendance  bases  alone,  and  it  would  tend  to  equalize 
burdens  and  advantages  as  between  the  cities  and  the  country. 
In  combination  with  an  average  daily  attendance  basis  (Chap- 
ter XI)  instead  of  a  census  basis  it  probably  would  produce  very 
good  results,  and  might  be  a  very  desirable  advance  over  the 
present  system  for  any  state  in  group  2,  Table  37,  Chapter  IX. 

The  chief  item  in  the  cost  of  a  school,  though,  as  we  have  re- 
peatedly pointed  out,  and  the  most  important  element  to  be  con- 
sidered in  providing  funds  for  the  maintenance  of  a  school,  is 
the  cost  for  the  salary  of  the  teacher.  Theoretically,  at  least,  the 
more  money  the  districts  have  with  which  to  pay  a  teacher  the 
better  the  quality  of  teacher  who  can  be  secured  and  the  higher 
•the  standard  of  qualification  which  the  state  can  demand  of  the 
teacher.  The  "  district  quota  "  is  an  attempt  to  provide  for  the 
needs  of  the  small  school  by  giving  to  each  small  district  a  little 
larger  apportionment  with  which  it  may  be  able  to  employ  a 
better  grade  of  teacher  or  to  conduct  a  longer  term  of  school. 
The  "  district  quota  "  is  a  first  step  in  the  direction  of  a  "  teacher 
quota " ;  the  ultimate  conclusion  of  the  process  is  the  definite 
recognition  of  the  teacher  unit  in  the  making  of  an  apportion- 
ment by  setting  aside  a  definite  sum  for  every  teacher  employed. 

THE   TEACHER   AS   A   BASIS 

In  determining  the  number  of  teachers  upon  which  the  appor- 
tionment is  to  be  made,  but  four  states  have  advanced  to  the 
point  of  giving  definite  recognition  to  every  teacher  employed  in 
the  state.  New  Jersey,  in  making  the  county  apportionment,  sets 
aside  $200.00  for  every  teacher  employed  in  the  county  for  full 
time  and  $80.00  for  each  teacher  employed  for  any  portion  of 
time  not  less  than  four  months ; c  New  York,  in  making  the 

6  School  Law  of  N.  /.,  as  enacted  by  the  2nd  Sp.  Ses.  12/th  N.  J.  Leg. 
and  Approved  Oct.  19,  1903;  Ch.  I,  Art.  XVII,  Sec.  182,  div.  I. 


The  Teacher  Employed  Basis  179 

state  apportionment,  sets  aside  $150.00  for  the  first  teacher  em- 
ployed if  the  property  valuation  of  the  district  is  not  over  $40,000, 
or  $125.00  for  the  first  teacher  employed  if  the  property  valua- 
tion is  over  $40,000,  and  then  $100.00  additional  "  for  each  addi- 
tional qualified  teacher  and  his  successors  "  7  actually  employed 
in  the  state ;  Pennsylvania  divides  one-third  of  the  entire  state 
apportionment  for  schools  equally  "  on  the  basis  of  the  number 
of  paid  teachers  regularly  employed  for  the  full  annual  term  " ; 8 
and  Vermont  distributes  the  income  from  the  state  school  tax, 
except  $15,000  reserved  for  equalization,  "  among  the  cities  and 
towns  in  proportion  to  the  number  of  legal  schools  maintained."  9 
All  four  of  these  states  use  the  teacher  basis  only  as  one  of  two 
or  more  bases  upon  which  to  apportion  school  funds,  though  in 
New  York  the  amount  left  for  distribution  on  other  bases  is 
small.  Delaware,  alone  of  all  the  states,  uses  the  teacher  basis 
entirely,  dividing  the  entire  state  fund  and  appropriation  among 
the  three  counties  of  the  state  in  proportion  to  the  number  of 
teachers  employed  for  one  hundred  and  forty  days  in  each,10 
but  limiting  the  number  for  which  any  county  may  receive  pay- 
ment at  one  hundred  and  sixty-five.  This  limitation  as  to  the 
number  of  teachers  destroys  the  perfect  equality  of  the  plan  for 
Delaware,  as  Newcastle  County,  outside  of  the  city  of  Wilming- 
ton, employed  one  hundred  and  fifty-three  teachers,  Kent 
County,  one  hundred  and  seventy-one  teachers,  and  Sussex 
County,  two  hundred  and  thirteen  teachers  1X  in  1901.  It  would 
have  been  better,  theoretically,  if  this  limitation  'had  not  been 

7  Consol.   School  Law  of  N.    Y.,   as  amended  to  June,   1903,  Title  II, 
Art.    i,    Sec.   6,  div.  2.     This   is   a   combination   of  the   district  and   the 
teacher  bases. 

8  Act  of  July  15,  1897,  Sec.  i.     Pa.  Ses.  Laws  of  1897,  p.  271. 

9  Vermont  Statutes  of  1894,  Title  II,  Ch.  40,  Sec.  762.     "A  legal  school 
for  the  purpose  of  the  preceding  section   shall  be  one   which   has   been, 
maintained  for  at  least  twenty-eight  weeks  during  the  school  year,  taught 
by  a  duly  qualified  teacher,  and  whose  register  has  been  kept  and  returned 
as  required  by  law."    Ibid,  Sec.  763. 

10  Laws  of  Delaware,  1901,  Ch.  112,  as  amended  by  Laws  of  1903,  Ch. 
339.     Previous    to    1901    this    apportionment    was    made   on    the   basis    of 
total  population,  and  previous  to  1903  the  apportionment  was  limited  to 
one  hundred  and  ten  teachers  in  each  county. 

11  2nd  Bien.  Kept.  State  Bd.  Educ.,  Del,  1901,  p.  7. 


180  School  Funds  and  their  Apportionment 

inserted  in  the  law  and  the  fund  had  been  distributed  each  year 
pro-rata  among  the  schools. 

As  a  single  basis  for  the  apportionment  of  funds,  the  teacher 
basis,  despite  its  limitations,  is  manifestly  better  than  the  school 
census  basis,  and  it  would  be  an  advance  educationally  if  the 
states  now  using  the  census  basis  alone  were  to  change  to  the 
teacher  basis  of  apportionment.  A  still  better  combination  basis 
can  be  devised,  but  the  teacher  basis  alone  would  be  much  more 
equitable  than  the  census  basis  now  so  commonly  used,  because  it 
changes  the  unit  of  payment  from  a  very  variable  item,  the 
"  scholastic  population,"  to  a  very  fixed  and  definite  item,  the 
teachers  actually  employed  in  teaching  the  schools.  This  may  be 
illustrated  by  using  the  case  of  the  state  of  Wisconsin,  which  we 
have  previously  used  in  Table  48,  Chapter  XI,  to  show  what  a 
series  of  small  schools  would  receive  under  a  census,  enrollment, 
and  attendance  basis  of  apportionment.  Dividing  the  total  state 
apportionment  for  1903-04  ($1,400,612.77)  by  the  total  number 
of  teachers  employed  12  in  the  counties  and  cities  of  the  state 
(13,551)  during  the  preceding  year,  on  which  the  apportionment 
would  have  to  be  made,  gives  a  teacher-basis  apportionment 
value  of  $103.36  per  teacher  employed  on  the  values  for  1903-04. 
To  have  received  this  amount  of  money  at  the  per  capita  on 
census  value  of  $1.82^  for  the  same  year  (Table  No.  24,  Ghap- 
ter  IX),  a  district  would  have  had  to  have  a  school  census  of 
fifty-seven  children,  which  is  larger  than  the  average  census  size 
of  the  country  schools  of  the  state.13 

Similar  calculations  may  be  made  for  the  state  of  Indiana.14 
The  total  amount  apportioned  for  the  year  1903-04  on  the  census 
of  1903  was  $2,223,714.78,  and  the  number  of  teachers  employed 
in  the  entire  state  during  the  preceding  school  year,  on  which  the 
apportionment  would  have  to  be  made,  was  16,080.  This  gives 

12  As  given  in  the  statistical  tables  of  the  Bien.  Rept.  Supt.  Pub.  Instr., 
Wis.t  1903-04,  Ft.  II,  pp.  91,  9,  and  20. 

13  The  average  number  of  census  children  per  teacher  employed  in  the 
entire    State   of   Wisconsin   during   1903-04,   cities   under   a   city   superin- 
tendent   excluded,    was    forty-eight.     This    is    calculated    by    dividing   the 
census,  4-20  years  of  age,  by  the  number  of  teachers  employed  outside 
of  the  cities. 

14  Bien.  Rept.  Supt.  Pub.  Instr.,  Ind.,  1904,  statistical  tables,  6a,  6b,  ;a, 
and  table  J. 


The  Teacher  Employed  Basis  181 

a  teacher  basis  apportionment  value  of  $138.29,  which,  at  the  per 
capita  on  census  value  of  the  state  apportionment  (Table  No.  35, 
Chapter  IX)  of  $2.90,  would  have  required  a  district  to  have  a 
school  census  of  forty-eight  children  to  have  received  an  equal 
sum  on  the  census  basis,  while  the  average  census  size  of  the 
schools,  per  teacher  employed,  in  all  the  township  schools  in 
Indiana  during  1903-04,  towns  and  cities  excluded,  was  but 
forty-two  census  children. 

Under  a  teacher  basis  of  apportionment  every  school,  regard- 
less of  its  size,  would  start  alike  with  a  common  minimum. 
What  each  could  do  beyond  this  would  depend  upon  density  of 
population,  taxable  property,  and  individual  initiative.  The  city 
school  and  the  country  school  would  thus  be  placed  on  the  same 
unit  basis,  the  unit  being  the  teacher  actually  employed  instead 
of  the  school  census  child.  Under  such  a  basis  of  distribution 
such  a  condition  of  affairs  as  is  shown  by  Table  30,  Chapter  IX, 
where  the  average  value  per  teacher  employed  of  the  per  capita 
on  census  apportionment  of  $2.90  is  given  for  the  township, 
town,  and  city  schools  of  the  first  eight  counties  of  Indiana, 
would  cease  to  exist.  This  table  showed  that  in  the  first  eight 
counties  of  Indiana  the  average  value  of  the  apportionment  per 
teacher  employed  varied  from  $78.52  to  $164.44  m  the  township 
schools;  from  $81.63  to  $162.46  per  teacher  in  the  town  schools; 
and  from  $109.32  to  $244.10  in  the  city  schools.  Under  an  equal 
division  per  teacher  employed  basis,  the  amount  would  be  $138.29 
in  every  case,  because  the  unit  used  is  the  same  for  all. 

Taking  the  same  nine  Wisconsin  counties  used  in  Tables  No. 
10  and  No.  23,  we  can  show  the  effect  of  a  teacher  basis  appor- 
tionment in  relative  tax  rates  required  to  produce  a  certain 
amount.  In  Table  No.  10,  Chapter  IV,  we  gave  calculations  to 
show  the  rate  of  tax  required  to  raise  $250.00  wholly  by  local 
taxation.  In  Table  No.  23,  Chapter  IV,  we  gave  calculations  to 
show  the  rate  of  tax  required  to  raise  the  balance  of  $250.00 
after  applying  the  state  census  apportionment.  Bringing  for- 
ward both  these  calculations,  applying  the  state  average  teacher 
basis  apportionment  of  $103.36  per  teacher  employed,  and  then 
calculating  the  rate  of  tax  in  mills  required  to  raise  the  balance 
of  $250.00  on  the  equalized  county  valuations  given  in  Table  No. 
10,  Chapter  IV,  we  get  the  following  comparative  table : 


1 82  School  Funds  and  their  Apportionment 

TABLE  No.  58. 

EFFECT  OF   AN   APPORTIONMENT   ON    CENSUS    AND   ON    TEACHERS    COMPARED   FOR 
CERTAIN    WISCONSIN   COUNTIES. 

(Compiled  and  calculated  for  the  school  year  1903-04  and  from  data  given 
in  Tables  No.  10  and  No.  23.) 

Tax  in  Av.  Value  of  Tax  in  Value  of  Tax  in 

mills  to  State  apport.  mills  for  State  apport.  mills  for 

County.                     raise              per  teacher  balance  on  teacher  balance 

$250.  per             employed.  of  $250.  per  basis.  of  $250.  per 

teacher.  teacher.  teacher. 

Adams 6.75  $  46.40  5.50  $103.36  3.96 

Ashland 3.14  96.44  1.93  103.36  1.90 

Barren 5.83  84.61  3.84  103.36  3.41 

Bayfield 2.03  84.55  1-34  103.36  1.18 

Brown 1.56  176.69  .46  103.36               .86 

Buffalo 3.04  87.58  1.97  103.36  1.74 

Burnett 11.57  60.37  8.78  103.36  6.07 

Calumet 1.44  134.38  .66  103.36               .84 

Milwaukee 72  193.29  .17  103.36               .42* 

*  To  produce  the  balance  of  $500  instead  of  $250  per  teacher  employed, 
this  rate  would  be  only  1.15  mills,  and  to  produce  the  balance  of  $750  per 
teacher,  the  rate  would  be  but  1.87  mills. 

This  table  shows,  for  this  group  of  counties,  how  very  much 
more  equitable  an  apportionment  could  be  made  on  the  teacher 
basis  than  on  the  census  basis.  Under  the  census  basis  of  appor- 
tionment the  reduction  in  the  tax  rate,  after  applying  the  census 
apportionment,  was  greatest  where  it  was  lowest  to  begin  with, 
and  least  where  it  was  highest;  but  under  the  teacher  basis  of 
apportionment  the  rate  of  reduction  in  the  tax  rate,  after  apply- 
ing the  uniform  teacher  apportionment,  is  much  more  evenly  pro- 
portioned, and  the  extremes  in  tax  rate  are  neither  so  high  nor 
so  low.  The  tax  rate,  compared  with  that  now  prevailing  under 
the  census  basis  of  apportionment,  would  be  reduced  in  the  poorer 
counties  and  increased  slightly  in  the  wealthier  counties  and  cities, 
as  it  should  be. 

The  effect  of  a  teacher  basis  of  apportionment  may  be  shown 
also  for  the  eight  Missouri  counties  and  the  city  of  St.  Louis, 
used  in  Table  No.  u,  Chapter  IV,  and  in  Table  No.  26,  Chapter 
IX.  Bringing  forward  the  calculations  given  in  these  tables, 
and  calculating  as  in  the  last  table,15  we  get  the  following: 

16  An.  Kept.  Supt.  Pub.  Instr.,  Mo.,  1904.  Number  of  teachers  em- 
ployed during  1903-04,  (p.  15)  17,036;  total  apportionment,  July,  1904, 
$1,285,162.18  (p.  65)  ;  value  per  teacher  employed,  $75.44. 


Tax  in 

mills  to 
raise 
t-'50. 

686 

Av.  value 
State 
apfiort. 
per  Tr. 
employed. 

$    ^8  14 

Tax  in 

mitts  for 
balance  of 
%250. 

C  27 

Value  nf 
State 
apport.  on 
teacher 
basis. 

$7C   A  A 

Tax  in 
mills/or 
balance  of 
$2SO. 

c  07 

3.56 

Y    O^'x*t 

60.00 

O**v 

2.70 

Y/  O'n*T 

75  44 

J.'-V 

240 

O  <JV 
•3  7C 

47  00 

?  QC 

/  O'H*r 

7$  44 

**.£f^ 

2.62 

*   o*/  o 

.  4.22 

7  S8 

*T/  •*J^J 
57-91 
788<5 

G*WO 
3-24 
c  20 

/  O'^r* 
75-44 
7^  44 

2-93 

e  20 

*     /  O^ 

587 

/  **•**«! 

C-J.26 

j.^.w 
4  60 

/  O'HT1 

7C  44 

o-^y 
4.1  1 

•     O**-V 

.  4.25 

6  ?4 

OO      w 

66.46 
64  ^o 

T..VSW 

3.12 

4  70 

/  O'^T 

75-44 
yc  44 

Af  .  i  A 

2.97 

4  4^ 

•     ^'OH 

.  I.  II 

v/H*Oi/ 

123.79 

*t"/  v' 

•56 

/  O**T*T 

75-44 

*r  *rO 

.78* 

The  Teacher  Employed  Basis  183 

TABLE  No.  59. 

EFFECT   OF  AN   APPORTIONMENT  ON   CENSUS    AND  ON   TEACHERS   COMPARED   FOR 
CERTAIN    MISSOURI    COUNTIES. 

(Compiled  and  calculated  from  data  given  in  Tables  No.  n  and  No.  26.) 

Counties. 

Adair 6.86 

Andrew 3.56 

Atchison 3.75 

Attdrain 4.22 

Barry 

Barton 5.87 

Bates 4.25 

Benton 

St.  Louis  (City). .   i.n 

*  To  produce  the  balance  of  $500  instead  of  $250  per  teacher  employed, 
this  rate  would  be  only  1.85  mills;  and  to  produce  the  balance  of  $800  per 
teacher,  the  rate  would  be  but  3.24  mills. 

The  result  shown  here  is  similar  to  that  shown  for  the  Wis- 
consin counties.  The  tax  rate  in  Barry  County  alone  of  the 
counties  would  be  increased,  but  the  large  census  apportionment 
per  teacher  for  this  county  shows  that  it  employs  few  teachers 
relative  to  its  census,  and  reveals  the  reason.  The  figures  given 
in  the  annual  report  show  an  average  enrollment  for  this  county 
of  sixty-one  pupils  per  teacher.  Its  tax  rate  is  high  because  it  is 
one  of  the  poor  counties  of  the  state  in  assessed  valuation,  but  has 
a  relatively  large  population.  St.  Louis  would  lose,  partly  be- 
cause but  48%  of  its  census  is  enrolled  as  against  a  state  average 
of  74%  (Table  No.  38,  Chapter  X),  and  partly  because  during 
1903-04  it  employed  but  one  teacher  for  every  44.6  pupils  en- 
rolled in  all  classes.16 

Similar  calculations  made  for  the  districts  of  Andrew  County, 
Missouri  (Table  No.  27,  Chapter  IX),  show  similar  equalizing 
results.  The  result  of  an  apportionment,  based  wholly  on  teach- 
ers employed,  would  be  a  tendency  toward  the  equalization  of 
both  the  burdens  and  the  advantages  of  education.  It  certainly 
would  relieve  the  excessive  tax  rate  in  many  a  poor  county, 

18  Enrollment,  83,924;  teachers  employed,  1859.  An.  Kept.  Supt.  Pub. 
Instr.,  Mo.,  1904,  pp.  77,  80. 


184  School  Funds  and  their  Apportionment 

township,  and  district,  and  enable  these  to  provide  better  educa- 
tional advantages  than  they  do  at  present.  The  large  cities  would 
lose  some,  but  probably  the  chief  increase  in  tax  in  many  cities 
would  be  to  make  up  for  what  they  ought  to  lose  under  any  just 
apportionment  basis.  Notwithstanding  the  fact  that  the  cities 
provide  more  for  their  children  and  that  education  costs  more  in 
the  cities,  the  large  cities  could  probably  still  maintain  their  more 
extensive  school  systems  on  a  much  lower  actual  tax  rate  than 
the  average  for  the  counties,  due  to  their  larger  per  capita 
wealth.  How  fully  this  basis  of  apportionment  would  equalize 
burdens  could  only  be  told  by  careful  calculations  based  on  rela- 
tive property  valuations,  but  it  is  certain  that  it  would  much  more 
nearly  do  so  than  will  a  census  basis  of  apportionment.  The 
earlier  change  in  the  basis  of  apportionment  from  the  taxes  paid 
by  the  parents  to  the  number  of  children  to  be  educated  was  a  long 
step  in  advance,  because  it  made  a  change  in  the  apportionment 
unit  from  the  parent's  dollar  to  the  parent's  child.  A  further 
change  in  the  unit  for  apportionment  from  the  child  to  the 
teacher  required  to  teach  the  child  would  seem  to  be  a  still  fur- 
ther advance  in  the  direction  of  justice  and  better  education. 

What  the  small  country  school  would  gain  by  such  a  change 
would  of  course  be  taken  from  the  cities  and  towns.  This  may 
be  shown  by  the  following  example :  The  average  number  of 
census  children  per  teacher  employed  in  the  cities  of  Wisconsin 
during  1903-04  was  79.5,  and  in  the  cities  of  Indiana  it  was  61.8. 
These  values  are  equal  to  average  teacher  apportionments  on  cen- 
sus of  $145.09  for  the  cities  of  Wisconsin,  and  of  $179.22  for  the 
cities  of  Indiana,  or  a  half  larger  than  the  state  average  teacher- 
basis  apportionment  for  Wisconsin  ($103.36),  and  a  third  larger 
than  the  state  average  teacher-basis  apportionment  for  Indiana 
($138.29).  Using  the  figures  for  average  percentage  of  census 
enrolled  in  the  cities  of  the  two  states  (Table  No.  38,  Chapter  X), 
these  would  give  average  enrollments  per  teacher  employed  of 
41.3  and  39.5  pupils  for  the  cities  of  the  two  states  respectively. 
A  part  of  this  loss  which  the  cities  would  experience  would  be  a 
loss  which  the  cities  ought  to  experience  under  any  circumstances, 
and  which  they  would  experience  under  an  enrollment  or  attend- 
ance basis  of  apportionment,  as  we  have  previously  pointed  out 
in  Chapters  IX,  X,  and  XI,  because  of  the  large  sums  which  cer- 
tain cities  now  receive  from  the  state  for  the  education  of  chil- 


The  Teacher  Employed  Basis  185 

dren  who  either  go  to  private  schools  or  do  not  go  to  school  at 
all.  The  other  part  of  the  loss,  the  minor  part  of  the  loss,  would 
be  real  and  actual,  and  would  have  to  constitute  the  cities'  con- 
tribution to  their  poorer  rural  neighbors  to  enable  them  to  pro- 
vide better  educational  conditions  for  their  children  and  to  help 
equalize  the  advantages  of  education  and  the  burdens  of  school 
support  throughout  the  state. 

How  this  would  work  out  may  be  shown  by  comparing  the  re- 
sults in  the  largest  city  in  each  state,  using  total  enrollment  as  a 
basis  for  comparison.  Average  daily  attendance  would  be  a 
better  basis  for  comparison,  but  the  Wisconsin  returns  do  not  give 
such  data  except  for  the  cities,  and  hence  a  state  average  per  cent 
of  attendance,  from  which  the  apportionment  value  on  attend- 
ance must  be  calculated,  can  only  be  estimated.  These  two  cities 
form  good  illustrations,  as  Milwaukee  enrolls  but  a  small  percent- 
age of  its  school  census  while  Indianapolis  enrolls  a  large  per- 
centage. And  the  percentage  of  the  enrollment  in  average  daily 
attendance  is  about  the  same  in  each,  being  77%  in  Milwaukee 
and  73%  in  Indianapolis  for  the  school  year  1903-04. 

In  Wisconsin,  the  city  of  Milwaukee  17  received  for  1903-04 
the  sum  of  $191,945.79  on  the  census  apportionment  basis.  It 
enrolled  43,433  children  between  -the  ages  of  four  and  twenty 
years.  This  was  41%  of  its  census  as  against  a  state  average  of 
61%  (Table  No.  31,  Chapter  IX).  Had  the  state  apportionment 
been  made  on  total  enrollment  instead  of  census,  at  the  state 
apportionment  on  enrollment  value  of  $2.99  (Table  No.  48,  Chap- 
ter XI),  the  city  would  have  received  $129,864.67.  The  differ- 
ence between  this  amount  and  the  amount  it  did  receive  was  what 
the  city  was  paid  on  the  census  basis  for  what  it  did  not  do. 
The  city  employed  during  1903-04  a  total  of  984  teachers,  which 
at  the  state  value  of  $103.36  per  teacher,  calculated  above,  would 
have  given  it  $101,706.24.  Milwaukee  would  thus  suffer  a  real 
loss  of  about  22%  on  a  teacher-employed  basis  over  what  it 
would  have  received  on  an  enrollment  basis,  and  about  24%  over 
what  it  would  have  received  on  an  average  daily  attendance  basis. 

1T  Bien.  Kept.  Supt,  Pub.  Instr.,  Wis.,  1903-04,  Ft.  II,  pp.  117,  119,  120. 
At  the  estimated  state  apportionment  on  average  daily  attendance  value  of 
$4.15  (see  Table  No.  48,  Chapter  XI),  the  amount  received  on  average 
daily  attendance  would  have  been  $133,572.77. 


i86  School  Funds  and  their  Apportionment 

The  city  of  Indianapolis,18  on  the  other  hand,  enrolled  68% 
of  its  school  census  in  1903-04  as  against  a  state  average  of  72% 
(Table  No.  39,  Chapter  XI).  Making  similar  calculations  we 
find  that  Indianapolis  would  have  received  on  the  basis  of  $2.90- 
on  the  school  census  of  1904  the  sum  of  $126,611.10  on  census; 
$109,614.43  on  total  enrollment  at  a  state  value  of  $4.03  (Table 
No.  35,  Chapter  IX)  ;  and  $108,834.23  on  a  teacher  basis  (787 
teachers  employed  in  1903-04),  at  the  state  value  of  $138.29  per 
teacher,  as  calculated  above.  This  would  be  a  real  loss  to  the 
city  on  a  teacher-employed  basis  of  only  about  i%  from  what 
the  city  would  have  received  on  an  enrollment  basis.  The  real 
loss  on  a  teacher-employed  basis  from  that  on  an  average  daily 
attendance  basis  (calculated  from  Table  No.  52,  Ch.  XI)  would 
have  been  about  6%. 

Indianapolis  would  then  receive  almost  as  much  from  the  state 
on  a  teacher  basis  as  on  an  enrollment  basis,  while  Milwaukee 
would  lose  slightly  over  one-fifth.  This  difference  is  due  to  the 
fact  that  Indianapolis  employed  a  relatively  larger  number  of 
teachers  to  teach  its  children,  having  one  teacher  for  every  37.7 
pupils  enrolled,  while  Milwaukee  had  but  one  teacher  for  every 
46.2  pupils  enrolled.19  This  includes  all  classes  of  teachers  and 
supervisors  and  the  enrollment  in  all  schools. 

The  illustration  just  given  for  the  two  cities  reveals  one  of  the 
/Strong  features  of  the  plan  of  using  the  number  of  teachers  ac- 
/tually  employed  as  at  least  one  of  the  bases  in  a  general  plan  for 
apportioning  school   funds,   and  shows   its  superiority  over  the 
/-— "  district  quota  "  basis.     Its  best  feature  is  that  it  places  a  pre- 
mium on  the  employment  of  a  sufficient  number  of  teachers  to- 
teach  the  children  properly.     If  a  city  wants  more  money  from 
the  state  in  return  for  its  taxes,  all  it  needs  to  do  is  to  provide 
better  for  its  children  by  employing  more  teachers  for  them.     Of 
course  the  amount  received  from  the  state  will  not  pay  the  salary 
of  the  teacher,  but  it  will  pay  a  large  enough  portion  of  it  to 
serve   as   a   strong   incentive   to   communities   to   provide   more 
teachers,  and  be  a  very  strong  argument  with  boards  of  educa- 

18  Bien.  Kept.  Supt.  Pub.  Instr.,  Ind.,  1904,  statistical  tables.     Also  see 
footnote  12,  Chapter  XI. 

19  Calculated  from  data  given  in  the  State  school  reports  for  the  years 
indicated  above,  by  dividing  the  total  enrollment  by  the  total  number  of 
teachers  employed. 


X 

UNIVE- 

. 


The  Teacher  Employed  Basis  187 


tion  in  support  of  a  superintendent's  request  for  needed  additions 
to  the  teaching  force.  The  chance  to  get  back  a  little  more  of 
the  state  tax  is  a  strong  incentive  to  almost  every  community. 
We  think  it  is  the  general  consensus  of  opinion  among  educators 
to-day  that  forty  children  in  a  grade  are  about  as  many  as  a 
teacher  can  teach  properly,  and  that  the  number  in  the  primary 
class  ought  to  be  even  less.  This  condition  is  found,  however, 
in  but  few  cities,  and,  if  the  opinion  of  educators  on  this  point  is 
of  value,  the  state  should  place  a  premium  on  the  work  of  those 
communities  where  the  teaching  is  done  under  the  best  conditions. 
I  For  the  little  country  school  the  result  might  not  be  materially 
different  under  the  teacher  basis  from  what  it  would  be  under 
the  "  district  quota  "  basis,  but  for  the  larger  country  schools  the 
teacher  basis  would  be  a  very  decided  gain.  There  are  many 
country  schools  in  the  different  states  where  an  enrollment  of 
forty  to  fifty  children  in  eight  or  nine  grades  is  taught  by  one 
teacher,  partly  because  there  is  not  money  enough  to  pay  two 
teachers,  and  partly  because  the  state  offers  no  incentive  to  the 
district  to  try  to  provide  another  teacher.  The  state  premium  at 
present  is  placed  on  the  division  of  the  district  and  the  building 
of  another  school-house,  and  this  is  usually  done.  This  has  led 
to  the  multiplication  of  small  districts  and  inefficient  schools.  It 
would  be  very  much  better,  unless  the  distances  traveled  are  very 
great,  to  try  to  keep  the  school  together  and  add  another  teacher 
to  it.  This  certainly  would  not  cost  any  more  and  would  be  very 
much  better  from  an  educational  point  of  view.  A  teacher  basis 
of  apportionment  would  tend  to  place  an  incentive  on  doing  this. 
Certain  limitations  as  to  size  and  distance  from  another  school 
would,  of  course,  be  a  wise  safeguard  against  the  undue  multipli-J 
cation  of  unnecessary  small  schools. 

The  teacher  basis  is,  however,  best  adapted  to  use  as  one  of 
a  combination  of  two  or  more  different  apportionment  bases. 
Used  alone,  while  it  would  be  better  than  the  census  basis  in  that 
it  would  be  more  generally  just,  it  would,  nevertheless,  fail  to 
place  a  premium  on  any  of  those  desirable  educational  efforts  of 
a  community,  such  as  keeping  a  school  together  so  as  to  teach  it 
more  economically  instead  of  dividing  the  district,  providing 
better  teachers  and  schools  so  as  to  attract  a  larger  enrollment, 
enforcing  the  attendance  laws,  lengthening  the  school  term,  etc., 
all  of  which  we  have  indicated  in  previous  chapters  as  very  de- 


i88  School  Funds  and  their  Apportionment 

sirable.  The  strong  point  in  favor  of  this  basis  is  that  in  cities, 
towns,  and  the  larger  country  schools  it  places  a  premium  on 
providing  a  sufficient  number  of  teachers,  and  for  the  small 
country  school  it  provides  a  larger  sum  of  money  than  such 
schools  would  receive  under  any  other  single  basis  so  far  consid- 
ered. Combined  with  an  aggregate  attendance  basis,  it  would 
place  a  premium  upon  almost  all  the  desirable  educational  efforts 
which  a  community  should  make  for  the  betterment  of  its  system 
of  public  schools. 

We  have  so  far  considered  the  teacher  basis  of  apportionment 
as  determined  by  the  number  of  teachers  actually  employed  in 
the  schools.  This  is  the  most  rational  basis  for  such  a  determin- 
ation. This  is  the  basis  used  in  New  Jersey,  New  York,  Penn- 
sylvania, Vermont,  and  to  a  degree  in  Delaware.  Two  Western 
states,  where  the  state  and  county  apportionment  is  large,  have 
seen  fit  to  determine  the  number  of  teachers  by  somewhat  arti- 
ficial means,  and  these  attempts  to  determine  when  a  teacher  is  to 
be  paid  for  on  some  other  basis  than  actual  teaching  deserve  some 
consideration  here.  In  both  states  the  state  apportionment  is,  at 
present,  made  to  the  counties  on  the  straight  census  basis,  the 
county  fund  added,  and  then  the  county  apportionment  is  made 
on  a  combination  of  bases,  one  of  which  is  the  teacher  basis. 

The  Nevada  law  provides : 20 

"  First.  He  (the  ex-officio  County  Superintendent)  must  ascertain  the 
number  of  teachers  each  district  is  entitled  to,  by  calculating  one  teacher 
for  every  seventy-five  census  children  or  fraction  thereof,  as  shown  by  the 
next  preceding  school  census. 

"  Second.  He  must  ascertain  the  total  number  of  teachers  for  the 
county  by  adding  together  the  number  of  teachers  assigned  to  the  several 
districts,  upon  the  'basis  of  one  teacher  to  every  seventy-five  census  chil- 
dren or  fraction  thereof. 

"  Third.  Forty  per  cent  of  the  amount  of  the  apportionment  from  the 
State  and  County  Fund  shall  'be  apportioned  equally  to  each  district  for 
every  teacher  assigned  it,  upon  the  basis  of  seventy-five  children  or  frac- 
tion thereof. 

"  Fourth.     Balance  on  school  census,  six  to  eighteen  years  of  age." 

The  California  law,  before  the  amendment  of  1905,  also  pro- 
vided:21 

20  Nevada  Stat.  of  1889,  p.  38.  The  School  Law  of  Nevada,  1891,  Art 
III,  Sec.  2. 

^Political  Code  of  CaL,  Sec.  1858. 


The  Teacher  Employed  Basis  189 

"  First.  He  (the  County  Superintendent)  must  ascertain  the  number  of 
teachers  each  district  is  entitled  to  by  calculating  one  teacher  for  every 
seventy  school  census  children,  or  a  fraction  of  such  number  not  less  than 
twenty  school  census  children,  as  shown  by  the  next  preceding  school  cen- 
sus; and  in  cities  or  districts  where  separate  classes  are  established  for 
the  instruction  of  the  deaf,  ...  an  additional  teacher  for  each  nine  deaf 
children,  or  fraction  of  such  number,  not  less  than  five,  actually  attending 
such  classes. 

"  Second.  He  must  ascertain  the  total  number  of  teachers  for  the  county 
by  adding  together  the  number  of  teachers  assigned  to  the  several  districts. 

"Third.  $500.00  shall  be  apportioned  to  each  district  for  every  teacher 
assigned  to  it ;  provided  that  to  districts  having  ten  and  less  than  twenty 
school  census  children  shall  be  apportioned  $400.00;  provided  further,  that 
to  districts  having  over  seventy  school  census  children  and  a  fraction  of 
less  than  twenty,  there  shall  be  apportioned  $20.00  for  each  census  child 
in  said  fraction."  22 

"  Fourth.     Remainder  to  be  apportioned  on  average  daily  attendance." 

Beginning  with  July,  1905,  California  makes  a  big  advance 
toward  equalization  by  abandoning  the  school  census  as  the  sole 
basis  23  for  the  state  apportionment  to  the  counties.24  After 
July  I,  the  state  apportionment  to  the  counties  will  be  made  on 
the  basis  of  $250.00  for  every  teacher  assigned  to  the  dif- 
ferent districts  by  the  county  superintendent,  and  the  balance 
on  average  daily  attendance.  The  teacher,  however,  instead 
of  being  determined  by  actual  teaching,  is  still  determined  by  the 
seventy  census  children  basis,  as  provided  for  in  the  first  sub- 

22  By  Assembly  Bill  No.  277,  Leg.  Ses.  of  1905,  this  division  is  amended 
to  read,  after  July  i,  1905,  as  follows : 

"  Third.  $550.00  shall  be  apportioned  to  each  school  district  for  every 
teacher  so  allowed  to  it;  provided,  that  to  districts  having  over  seventy 
or  a  multiple  of  seventy  school  census  children  and  a  fraction  of  seventy 
less  than  twenty  school  census  children,  there  shall  be  apportioned  $25.00 
for  each  census  child  in  said  fraction." 

This  entirely  abolishes  all  distinctions  as  between  schools,  making  equal  pro- 
vision for  the  small  school  and  for  the  large  school.  The  teacher  is  the  real 
unit  recognized.  The  large  apportionment  also  makes  the  system  practi- 
cally a  county  system  of  support  instead  of  a  district  system,  the  entire 
county  pooling  effort  to  maintain  the  schools  of  the  county.  The  result  is 
good  schools  in  the  country,  in  the  mountains,  and  on  the  edge  of  the 
desert,  as  well  as  in  the  cities  and  towns. 
<!^28  Senate  Bill  No.  236,  Ses.  of  1905.  ,  / 

24  For  a  full  discussion  of  the  reasons  for  this  change  and  illustrations 
jof  the  inequalities  existing  in  California  under  the  census  basis  of  appor- 
:  tionment  to  the  counties,  see  the  numbers  of  The  Western  Journal  of  Edu- 
cation (San  Francisco)  for  January  and  February,  1905. 


190  School  Funds  and  their  Apportionment 

division  of  the  county  apportionment  law  quoted  above.  The 
reason  for  making  such  an  artificial  provision  was,  that  by  so 
doing,  a  slightly  larger  proportion  of  money  would  be  diverted 
from  the  counties  containing  large  cities  to  the  essentially  rural 
counties  of  the  state.  The  idea  underlying  this  arrangement  was 
that  the  counties  containing  large  cities  have  a  proportionally 
greater  aggregation  of  both  people  and  wealth,  and  hence  are 
better  able  to  provide  extra  educational  facilities  and  to  care  for 
themselves,  while  the  rural  counties  stand  in  greater  need  of  aid. 
As  a  practical  result  the  counties  containing  large  cities  receive 
an  allowance  for  about  90%  of  the  teachers  they  employ,  while 
the  rural  counties  receive  an  allowance  for  about  all  the  teachers 
they  employ.  The  results,  though,  are  by  no  means  even,  as  the 
following  tables  show.  In  the  first  of  the  two  tables  we  use  the 
ten  counties  allowed  the  largest  number  of  teachers  and  the  ten 
counties  allowed  the  smallest  number  of  teachers. 

TABLE  No.  60. 

RESULTS    OF   THE    CENSUS    METHOD   OF    DETERMINING    THE    NUMBER   OF   TEACH- 
ERS  COMPARED   WITH   THE  NUMBER  ACTUALLY  EMPLOYED. 

(Calculated   from   data   given  in   the  Bien.  Kept.  Supt.  Pub.  Instr.,  Cal., 
1904,  and  a  Department  circular  of  Jan.  n,  1905.) 


A 
Counties.           ; 

San  Francisco.  .  . 

Los   Angeles.... 
Alameda 

Number  of  teachers. 
Honied  on              Actually 
'O  census             Employed 
basis. 

1,306                     996 
790                  1,131 

526               575 
260               293 
224               254 

201                     221 

195              216 

176                    241 
l62                     165 

n5               166 

'.         Counties. 

Modoc  .  .  . 

ff  umber  t 
AliC'iued  on 
70  census 
basis. 

.    40 

if  teachers. 
Actually 
Employed. 

40 

35 
33 
32 
24 
24 

22 

18 
ii 

3 

Lassen  .  . 

36 

Mariposa  , 

.    36 

Santa   Clara  
Fresno 

Plumas  — 
Sierra.  .  .  . 

31 
.    23 

Sonoma 

Trinity 

24 

San  Diego 

Jnyo  

.    24 

Sacramento  

Del  Norte 
Mono 

18 
,  ii 

Humboldt 

San    Toaouin..  . 

Aloine..  . 

3 

An  inspection  of  the  first  two  columns  of  figures  shows  the 
inequalities  in  results  when  an  artificial  method  of  determining 
an  actual  thing  is  employed.  This  may  be  shown  further  by  cal- 
culating the  values  for  the  five  largest  cities  in  the  state,  high 
school  teachers  being  excluded  from  the  calculation. 


The  Teacher  Employed  Basis  191 

TABLE  No.  61. 

A     COMPARISON     OF    TEACHERS     ALLOWED     FOR     UNDER    THE     CENSUS     BASIS    OF 

CALCULATION  AND  THE  NUMBER  ACTUALLY  EMPLOYED,  IN  THE  FIVE 

LARGEST    CITIES    OF    CALIFORNIA. 

(Calculated  from  data  given   in   the  Bien.  Rept.   Supt.  Pub.   Instr.   Cal., 
1904,  statistical  tables.) 

Census,                    Teachers  Teachers  employed,  1003-04. 

Cities.                 1004.                       allowed  Whole                   In     '           Per  cent, 

for  number^         kindergartens    of -whole 

iqoj.  qy  including  Kn.            alone.        allowed  for . 

San  Francisco...  97,353  i,39i  996  o  131% 

Los  Angeles 35,4H  506  665  87  76% 

Oakland 17,222  246  226  2  109% 

Sacramento 6,324  90  137  15  65% 

San  Jose 5,345  77  99  o  78% 

These  two  tables  show  sufficiently  well  that  a  method  of  arti- 
ficially determining  the  number  of  teachers  to  be  paid  for  by  the 
use  of  the  school  census  is  not  one  calculated  to  give  even  or 
satisfactory  results.  Our  discussion  of  the  school  census  basis  in 
Chapter  IX  would  have  indicated  this  in  advance.  The  city 
which  has  a  large  private  school  enrollment  or  which  does  not 
adequately  provide  for  the  instruction  of  its  children  will  receive 
pay  for  more  teachers  than  it  actually  employs,  while  the  city 
which  provides  good  schools  and  'has  but  a  small  private  school 
enrollment  will  employ  many  more  teachers  than  it  receives  an 
allowance  for.  The  premium  here,  as  in  all  other  cases  where 
the  school  census  is  used  as  an  apportionment  basis,  is  placed  on 
the  wrong  side.  While  the  theory  underlying  the  California  plan 
is  good  in  so  far  as  it  recognizes  a  greater  ability  to  care  for 
themselves  on  the  part  of  the  cities,  the  practical  working  out  of 
the  plan  is  very  defective  in  that  it  gives  the  most,  proportion- 
ally, to  the  city  which  does  the  least  for  itself. 

If  the  number  of  teachers  to  be  paid  for  is  to  be  determined 
by  any  artificial  method,  then,  from  the  conclusions  arrived  at  in 
Chapters  IX,  X,  and  XI,  average  daily  attendance  would  seem 
to  be  a  far  better  and  a  far  more  just  basis  to  use  in  determining 
the  number.  The  state  average  for  average  daily  attendance  on 
census  was  53%  for  1903-04  (Table  No.  34,  Chapter  IX).  This 
would  give  about  one  teacher  for  every  thirty-seven  children  in 
average  daily  attendance  at  school.  As  the  percentage  varies 
somewhat  from  year  to  year,  thirty-five  would  be  a  better  num- 
ber to  use  than  thirty-seven.  The  figures  for  average  daily 


192  School  Funds  and  their  Apportionment 

attendance  for  the  cities  are  not  given  in  the  1904  report  except 
for  San  Francisco,  but  for  this  city  one  teacher  for  every  thirty- 
five  children  in  average  daily  attendance  would  allow  the  city  an 
apportionment  on  999  teachers  for  1903-04,  and  1,011  teachers 
for  1904-05,  a  number  very  close  to  actual  needs  and  service  ren- 
dered. The  use  of  an  average  daily  attendance  basis  for  arti- 
ficially determining  the  number  of  teachers  to  be  allowed  and 
apportioned  on  would  make  some  just  allowance  for  the  efforts 
made  by  a  city  in  maintaining  kindergartens,  which  is  not  fully 
recognized  under  the  census  basis  of  determining  the  number. 
So  far  as  the  teacher  apportionment  is  concerned,  as  now  deter- 
mined on  the  census  basis,  San  Francisco  with  no  kindergarten 
teachers  stands  on  the  same  basis  as  Los  Angeles  which  employs 
eighty-seven.  If  the  number  of  teachers  to  be  paid  for  were 
determined  by  an  average  daily  attendance  of  thirty-five  for  each 
teacher,  Los  Angeles  would  receive  about  fifty  additional  teacher- 
quotas  because  of  the  kindergartens  it  maintains.  Under  a 
teacher  apportionment  basis,  where  the  number  of  teachers  to  be 
paid  for  is  determined  by  the  number  of  teachers  actually  em- 
ployed, Los  Angeles  would  receive  eighty-seven  additional  teacher 
quotas. 

By  far  the  most  just  plan,  though,  as  well  as  the  easiest  plan 
from  an  administrative  point  of  view,  is  to  pay  a  definite  sum 
for  every  teacher  actually  employed  during  the  year,  and  an  addi- 
tional definite  sum  for  any  teacher  added  in  the  middle  of  the 
year  to  relieve  crowded  class-rooms  or  overworked  teachers. 
This  places  a  premium  on  employing  a  sufficient  number  of  teach- 
ers to  teach  the  children  in  the  schools  properly.  If  a  city  will 
reduce  its  per  teacher  enrollment  from  fifty  to  forty  children,  or 
will  put  in  extra  teachers  whenever  extra  teachers  become  neces- 
sary, the  state  ought  to  place  a  premium  on  such  efforts,  because 
such  efforts  are  in  the  interests  of  a  better  education.  If  a  large 
country  school  will  employ  a  second  teacher  instead  of  dividing 
its  district,  the  state  ought  to  give  a  premium  to  the  district  for 
an  effort  so  clearly  in  the  direction  of  better  education,  and  also 
do  this  without  regard  to  the  number  of  census  children  25  or 

25  Under  a  teacher  basis  it  would  of  course  be  necessary  to  limit  the 
conditions  under  which  a  new  district  may  be  formed,  such  as  a  require- 
ment of  so  many  children  of  school  age,  distance  from  any  other  school, 
etc.  This,  however,  ought  to  be  done  in  any  case. 


\ 


The  Teacher  Employed  Basis  193 

the  enrollment  or  attendance  at  the  school.  There  is  little  danger 
of  the  employment  of  too  many  teachers,  but  even  this  could  be 
safeguarded  by  making  the  teacher  employed  only  a  partial  basis 
for  the  apportionment  of  funds,  and  granting  the  remainder  on 
the  basis  of  daily  attendance. 

The  teacher  actually  employed  basis  is  more  just  and  better 
from  an  administrative  point  of  view,  further,  because  it  makes 
possible  for  the  state  to  recognize  at  once  and  without  special 
legislation  a  number  of  very  desirable  efforts  now  made  by  the 
larger  communities  and  for  which,  under  a  census  basis,  they  re- 
ceive no  recognition  whatever.  Under  this  heading  we  include 
the  employment  of  kindergarten  teachers,  manual  training  teach- 
ers, domestic  science  teachers,  teachers  of  city  schools  for  the 
deaf  and  blind,  teachers  in  parental  schools,  the  ungraded-room 
teacher  found  in  a  few  cities  in  connection  with  each  large  school 
building,  and  whose  work  consists  in  giving  special  individual 
instruction  to  those  in  need  of  such  assistance,  evening  school 
teachers  (counting  as  part  time  teachers),  special  supervisors,  etc. 
At  present  these  are  usually  required  to  be  paid  for  entirely  by 
the  communities  maintaining  them,  and  this  is  defended  on  the 
ground  that  the  cities  are  richer  and  already  get  more  than 
their  share  of  the  present  school  money.  A  state  premium  on 
these  efforts  would  not  only  be  justice  to  the  cities,  but  would 
•have  a  most  beneficial  effect  on  the  smaller  cities  and  towns  by 
encouraging  them  to  add  some  of  these  desirable  features  to  their 
schools  as  well.  Few  states  have  as  yet  given  any  recognition  to 
any  other  than  the  ordinary  type  of  teacher  and  school,  and  the 
result  is  that  these  extra  forms  of  instruction  are  now  found 
almost  entirely  in  the  cities. 

Under  a  census  basis  of  determining  the  number  of  teachers, 
a  city  of  ten  thousand  school  census  children,  which  maintains 
kindergartens,  manual  training,  domestic  science,  a  parental 
school,  ungraded-room  teachers,  evening  schools,  special  super- 
visors, and  a  grade  teacher  for  every  forty  children,  will  not 
receive  a  cent  more  of  the  state  and  county  money  than  a  city  of 
the  same  school  census  size  which  maintains  nothing  but  the  ordi- 
nary grade  schools  and  teaches  the  children  in  these  in  classes  en- 
rolling fifty-five  or  more  children  each.  Under  an  enrollment  or 
attendance  basis  the  kindergartens  would  receive  recognition,  as 
would  additional  pupils  put  in  the  schools  by  reason  of  the  en- 


194  School  Funds  and  their  Apportionment 

forcement  of  the  compulsory  attendance  law,  but  the  pupils  in- 
structed by  the  other  classes  of  teachers  would  already  have  been 
counted  once  somewhere  else.  Under  a  teacher-actually-em- 
ployed basis  each  additional  type  of  teacher  is  definitely  recog- 
nized. 

Once  do  away  with  all  artificial  methods  of  determining  the 
number  of  teachers  and  the  way  is  at  once  open  for  a  definite 
state  recognition  of  every  effort  which  a  community  will  make 
for  itself.  If  a  city  with  a  hundred  primary  and  grammar  grade 
teachers  each  teaching  fifty  children  will  employ  twenty-five  ad- 
ditional teachers  so  as  to  teach  these  same  children  in  classes  of 
forty  each,  the  state  will  add  twenty-five  "  teacher's  quotas  "  to 
the  city's  apportionment;  if  the  city  will  add  seven  kindergarten 
teachers,  the  state  will  add  seven  additional  "  teacher's  quotas  " ; 
and  if  the  city  will  further  add  two  manual  training  teachers, 
two  teachers  of  domestic  science,  a  teacher  for  the  seven  or  eight 
deaf  children  in  the  city,  and  a  supervisor  of  music,  the  state  will 
add  six  further  "  teacher's  quotas."  The  small  town  and  the 
country  district  may  also  share  on  equal  terms.  Every  large 
country  school  which  changes  to  a  two-room  school  will  receive 
a  double  quota,  without  reference  to  what  its  school  census  may 
be.  Every  town  school  which  adds  an  additional  teacher  will  be 
similarly  rewarded.  If  three  adjacent  towns  will  each  provide  a 
manual  training  equipment,  and  unite  in  employing  a  manual 
training  teacher  who  will  give  a  certain  portion  of  his  time  to 
each  town,  each  town  will  receive  in  return  from  the  state  one- 
third  of  a  regular  teacher's  quota  toward  paying  this  special 
teacher's  salary.  For  every  additional  teacher  made  necessary  by 
the  enforcement  of  the  compulsory  attendance  law,  a  new  teach- 
er's quota  is  added.  Under  such  a  plan  the  necessity  of  years  of 
discussion  to  amend  the  apportionment  act 26  for  the  recognition 
of  each  new  undertaking  is  obviated;  the  law  works  justly  and 
automatically,  rewarding  effort  of  any  kind  wherever  and  when- 
ever it  has  been  made. 

20  California  has  already  found  it  necessary  to  amend  the  apportion- 
ment act  to  include  oral  day  schools  for  the  instruction  of  deaf  children, 
but  no  other  type  of  extra  teacher  has  as  yet  received  any  recognition. 
As  the  law  now  stands,  a  special  amendment  will  be  necessary  for  each 
new  type  of  teacher  desired  to  be  recognized. 


The  Teacher  Employed  Basis  195 

The  teacher  actually  employed,  then,  forms  a  very  satisfactory 
unit  for  use  in  the  apportionment  of  school  funds.  It  is  a  defi- 
nite item,  is  exactly  proportionate  to  the  efforts  made  by  a  com- 
munity in  providing  teachers  for  its  schools,  is  just  to  the  small 
country  school  as  well  as  to  the  large  city  school,  and  is  auto- 
matically adjustable  to  changes  in  a  school  system  and  to  the  in- 
troduction of  new  and  desirable  educational  efforts.  It  does  not, 
however,  place  any  direct  premium  on  regularity  of  attendance, 
length  of  term,  enforcement  of  the  attendance  and  child  labor 
laws,  or  on  the  efforts  to  build  up  a  public  pride  in  the  public 
school  system,  and  in  these  respects  it  is  particularly  defective. 
Combined  with  such  a  basis  as  aggregate  days'  attendance,  which 
places  a  premium  on  all  these  efforts,  it  would  seem  to  form  one 
of  the  best  combination  bases  of  apportionment  that  could  be  used. 

How  such  a  combination  basis  would  work  out  may  be  shown 
by  comparing  the  same  series  of  small  districts  used  in  Table 
No.  48,  Chapter  XI,  where  the  income  of  such  a  series  of  small 
rural  districts  was  compared  under  the  census,  total  enrollment, 
forty-day  enrollment,  and  average  daily  attendance  bases  of  ap- 
portionment, using  the  percentages  for  the  state  of  Wisconsin, 
for  the  year  1903-04.  Let  us  use  these  same  small  districts,  and 
suppose  that  the  Wisconsin  law  for  1903-04  had  required  the 
state  apportionment  to  be  made  by  first  giving  $80.00  to  every 
district,  town,  and  city  in  the  state,  for  every  teacher  actually 
employed  the  preceding  year,  and  that  the  remainder  should  then 
be  divided  to  each  district  in  proportion  to  its  average  daily  attend- 
ance. Multiplying  the  number  of  teachers  employed  in  the  state 
(13,551  during  1902-03)  by  80,  and  subtracting  this  product 
from  the  total  apportionment  ($1,400,612.77),  gives  us  a  balance 
of  $316,532.77  to  be  apportioned  on  average  daily  attendance. 
At  the  same  percentages  used  in  calculating  the  values  for  Table 
No.  48,  viz.,  61%  of  the  total  census  enrolled  and  72%  of  the 
total  enrollment  in  average  daily  attendance,  we  get  an  average 
daily  attendance  for  the  state  of  333,189,  which  would  make  the 
apportionment  on  average  daily  attendance  worth  95  cents  per 
pupil.  Bringing  forward  portions  of  Table  No.  48,  and  calcu- 
lating the  other  values  under  the  suggested  combination  plan,  we 
get  the  following  comparative  table : 


196  School  Funds  and  their  Apportionment 

TABLE  No.  62. 

INCOME  OF  SMALL  SCHOOLS  COMPARED,  UNDER  THE  CENSUS  BASIS  AND   UNDER 
A    COMBINATION    APPORTIONMENT   PLAN. 


Census, 
4  20  Yrs. 

Enrollment 
@  bo^of 
census. 

Av.  Dy.  Att. 
@75l'of 
enrollment. 

Amount  received  from  apportionment. 
On  census        On  combination  @  $80 
@$i.82%                        95c.per 

pupil  in  av.  dy.  aft. 

II 

7 

5+ 

$20.08 

$8475 

16 

10+ 

8— 

29.20 

87.60 

23 

15 

«+ 

41.98 

90-45 

3i 

20+ 

15 

56.38 

94-25 

39 

25+ 

19— 

7l.l8 

98.05 

46 

30 

23— 

83.95 

101.85 

62 

40+ 

30 

H3.I5 

I08.50 

77 

50 

38- 

140.53 

116.10 

92 

60- 

45 

167.00 

122.75 

This  shows  that  up  to  an  enrollment  of  about  thirty-eight  the 
schools  would  gain,  but  above  about  thirty-eight  they  would  lose. 
Those  which  would  lose  most  are  the  ones  with  the  largest  census, 
and,  hence,  those  having  a  large  number  of  parents  to  contribute 
to  the  support  of  the  school.  The  last  school  ^iven  may  be  taken 
to  represent  a  city  grade  class.  If  it  is  a  country  school,  an 
additional  $80  could  be  earned  at  any  time  by  adding  another 
teacher.  All  schools  are  given  an  approximately  even  start,  as 
shown  by  the  last  column.  This  is  the  real  merit  of  the  plan,  as 
it  makes  the  school  the  unit,  and  not  the  census  child.  The 
Wisconsin  apportionment  being  small,  only  a  small  premium  can 
be  placed  on  regularity  of  attendance.  A  plan  of  this  kind,  to 
work  best,  requires  a  somewhat  larger  apportionment  than  that 
given  by  Wisconsin.  If  aggregate  days'  attendance  had  been 
used,  the  results  would  be  somewhat  different,  as  length  of  term 
would  then  have  been  a  factor  in  determining  the  size  of  the 
apportionment. 

This  illustration  represents  only  one  of  a  number  of  combina- 
tion plans,  the  aim  of  all  of  which  is  to  give  each  school  a  some- 
what even  start.  To  do  this,  the  "  district  quota  "  or  the 
"  teacher  quota,"  in  some  form  or  other,  must  enter  as  an  ele- 
ment. Indiana's  2T  and  Alabama's  28  requirement  that  the  state 

27/n<f.  Laws  of  1897,  p.  291.  Ind.  Rev.  Stat.  of  1901,  Sec.  5973.  The 
effect  of  this  is  to  first  make  the  i6th  section  fund  of  every  township  as 
large  (per  capita)  as  that  of  the  township  having  the  largest  per  capita 
fund.  If  the  State  fund  should  be  insufficient  or  only  sufficient  for  the 


The  Teacher  Employed  Basis  197 

funds,  which  the  counties  receive,  shall  first  be  used  to  equalize 
the  various  township  i6th  section  funds  before  making  the 
county  apportionment  on  census;  South  Carolina's29  require- 
ment that  all  schools  first  be  equalized  to  $75  before  distributing 
the  balance  on  enrollment;  Kentucky's  30  considering  that  all  dis- 
tricts have  a  school  census  of  at  least  forty-five  children;  and 
Washington's  31  provision  that  all  schools  shall  be  considered  as 
having  at  least  two  thousand  days  of  attendance,  are  illustrations 
of  how  states  have  tried  by  indirect  means  to  recognize  the  school 
or  teacher  unit.  The  setting  aside  of  a  district  quota  by  Idaho, 
Wyoming,  Nebraska,  and  Oregon,  before  apportioning  the  re- 
mainder on  attendance,  represent  definite  attempts  to  provide  for 
the  small  school,  where  tax-payers  are  small  in  number  and  tax- 
able property  is  small  in  amount,  by  placing  it  on  a  plane  of  par- 
tial equality  with  the  town  or  city.  New  York,  New  Jersey,  Ver- 
mont, and  Pennsylvania  have  carried  the  matter  to  its  logical 
conclusion  and  made  the  teacher  actually  employed  a  definite  unit 
in  their  combination  plans  for  the  apportionment  of  funds.  Cali- 
fornia and  Nevada,  though  by  an  indirect  method,  have  also 
made  the  teacher  the  main  factor  in  their  combination  apportionr 
ment  plans. 

Table  No.  37,  Chapter  IX,  gives  a  few  of  the  combination 
plans  in  use,  and  we  have  mentioned  these  more  in  detail  in  a 
number  of  places  in  the  preceding  pages.  The  best,  and  at  the 
same  time  the  most  flexible,  combination  basis,  as  we  shall  show 
more  fully  in  the  succeeding  chapters,  is  a  combination  of  teacher- 
actually-employed  and  aggregate  days7  attendance.  If  the  length 
of  term  is  nearly  the  same  throughout  the  entire  state,  then  aver- 

purpose,  then  the  township  having  the  largest  i6th  section  fund  would 
not  receive  any  of  the  State  fund. 

28  "All  townships  or  school  districts,  'having  an  income  from  trust  funds 
or  from  the  sale  or  lease  of  i6th  'section  lands,  shall  not  receive  anything 
out  of  the  balance  of  the  education  fund  to  be  apportioned,  until  all  other 
townships  or  school  districts,  having  no  trust  fund,  shall  have  received 
an  equal  per  capita  apportionment  with  the  townships  or  districts  having 
such  income."    Ala.  Code  of  1897,  Ch.  100,  Art.  9,  Sec.  3604. 

29  See  footnote  8,  Chapter  X. 

80  The  Common  School  Law  of  the  Commonwealth  of  Ky.,  1904,  Art 
I,  Sec.  2. 

81  See  footnote  24,  Chapter  XL 


198  School  Funds  and  their  Apportionment 

age  daily  attendance  will  serve  about  as  well  as  aggregate  days' 
attendance,  but  the  latter  is  more  flexible,  as  we  shall  point  out 
more  fully  in  Chapter  XV,  measures  the  work  of  the  school  more 
closely,  and  is  to  be  preferred.  The  difference,  though,  where  the 
length  of  the  term  throughout  the  state  is  about  the  same,  is  not 
one  of  fundamental  importance. 

This  combination  of  bases  to  provide  a  means  of  apportioning 
funds,  so  as  to  more  nearly  equalize  the  apportionment  to  all  dis- 
tricts, represents  a  marked  improvement  over  any  single  basis, 
because  it  enables  a  state  to  more  nearly  equalize  the  apportion- 
ment to  each  school  unit.  A  first  division  is  made  equally  to  all, 
and  a  remainder  reserved  for  use  as  a  premium  on  the  efforts  of 
the  community.  This  is  certainly  a  much  more  equitable  basis  of 
apportionment  than  the  per  capita  on  census  basis,  and  the  time 
will  come  in  each  of  the  states  when  school  men  and  legislatures 
will  so  regard  it.  When  this  comes  to  be,  the  second  great  step 
in  the  attempt  to  equalize  educational  burdens  and  advantages, 
as  outlined  at  the  close  of  Chapter  VI,  will  'have  been  taken. 


CHAPTER  XIII 
DISTRIBUTION  WITH  REFERENCE  TO  EFFORT  AND  NEED 

ALL  of  the  methods  of  apportioning  school  funds  which  we  \ 
have  so  far  considered,  the  taxes-where-paid  and  the  valuation 
bases  alone  excepted,  have  had  as  their  purpose  the  apportion- 
ment of  funds  to  the  different  school  units  in  some  relation  to 
the  educational  work  which  it  is  supposed  that  these  districts  will 
have  to  do.  The  population  and  school  census  bases  aim  to  dis- 
tribute the  money  with  reference  only  to  the  number  of  children 
of  the  so-called  "  school  age ;"  the  enrollment  basis  considers 
only  those  of  "  school  age  "  who  really  enroll  in  the  schools ; 
the  average  membership  basis  considers  only  those  who  belong 
to  the  schools ;  the  attendance  basis  considers  only  those  who 
attend  the  schools ;  and  the  aggregate  days'  attendance  basis  con- 
siders also  the  length  of  term  which  the  community  provides. 
Each  of  these  bases  is  an  improvement  over  the  one  next  pre-/ 
ceding  it,  but  each  is  unjust  to  the  small  school  and  each  gives,' 
to  the  larger  school  more  than  its  proper  share.  Any  one  of  these 
bases  punishes  the  man  whose  calling  is  such  that  he  is  compelled 
to  live  on  the  farm  or  in  a  sparsely  settled  region  by  taxing  him 
at  a  high  rate  to  support  a  small  school  which  is  often  a  poor 
school,  and  also  punishes  his  children  by  providing  them  with  a 
poorer  school,  a  shorter  term,  fewer  educational  advantages,  and 
usually  a  poorer  teacher  than  is  provided  for  children  who  are 
fortunate  enough  to  be  able  to  attend  a  good  city  school.  This 
places  a  premium  on  parents  moving  to  the  city  to  secure  better 
educational  advantages  for  their  children,  when  the  premium 
ought  rather  to  be  placed  on  the  opposite  tendency.  The  district- 
quota  and  the  teacher-basis  types  of  distribution  tend  to  equalize 
the  apportionment  between  all  types  of  schools,  and  to  provide 
the  small  school  with  more  money  with  which  to  employ  a  better 
teacher  and  to  maintain  a  better  school.  The  various  combina- 
tion types  of  distribution,  in  which  the  teacher  or  the  district 
enter  as  one  of  the  bases  of  apportionment,  and  which  we  de- 

(199) 


2OO  School  Funds  and  their  Apportionment 

scribed  briefly  at  the  close  of  the  last  chapter,  have  the  double 
aim  of  first  providing  every  school  with  an  equal  minimum  sum 
and  then  of  distributing  what  remains  on  some  basis  which  recog- 
nizes the  size  of  the  school  or  the  efforts  which  the  community 
makes  for  itself.  This  results  in  a  much  closer  equalization  of 
apportionments  to  each  school,  leaving  to  the  communities  to  pro- 
vide by  local  taxation  for  the  remainder  of  the  funds  necessary 
to  properly  maintain  the  school.  The  larger  the  school  the  larger 
the  number  of  parents  there  will  be  to  help  pay  the  taxes,  and,  in 
general,  the  more  densely  the  region  is  populated  the  greater  will 
be  the  taxable  wealth  behind  each  school  maintained.1 

The  result  is  a  tendency  toward  the  equalization  of  tax-rates 
for  schools  in  cities,  towns,  and  country,  as  was  shown  in  Tables 
No.  58  and  No.  59,  Chapter  XII,  but  real  equalization  of  burdens 
will  not  be  accomplished  in  any  very  marked  degree.  The  com- 
munities where  the  taxes  would  be  highest  under  local  taxation 
or  under  the  census  basis  of  apportionment  would  of  course  ex- 
perience the  greatest  reduction,  while  communities  where  the  tax 
was  the  least  would  probably  experience  a  small  increase,  but  the 
difference  in  tax-rate  required  to  produce  the  same  amount 
would  still  be  great,  as  measured  between  the  highest  and  the 
lowest.  Even  after  making  proper  allowances  for  the  greater 
cost  of  education  in  the  large  cities  the  tax-rate  for  schools  re- 
quired there  would  still  be  lower  than  in  most  country  districts, 
as  was  pointed  out  under  Chapter  XII,  and  in  those  cities  where 
the  per  capita  wealth  is  greatest  the  tax-rate  required  for  schools 
would  probably  still  be  lower  than  the  average  school  tax-rate 
for  the  state.  All  that  the  combination  type  of  apportionment 
tries  to  do  is  to  approximately  equalize  the  apportionments  given 
to  the  different  districts  for  each  school  maintained.  In  doing 
this  the  state  recognizes  the  teacher  of  each  school  as  the  unit  of 
cost  instead  of  the  pupil,  and  consequently  places  all  schools  on 
the  same  unit  basis,  the  variations  in  apportionments  being  in  the 
nature  of  premiums  on  enrollment,  regularity  of  attendance,  and 
length  of  term  provided.  If  this  change  in  unit  were  generally 
adopted  it  would  mark  as  great  an  advance  toward  the  equaliza- 

1  A  study  of  the  many  tables  given  in  Chapters  III  and  IV  will  sub- 
stantiate this  statement  in  the  main,  though  of  course  there  are  a  number 
of  individual  exceptions.  It  is  very  much  more  often  true  than  not 
true,  though. 


Distribution  on  Effort  and  Need  201 

tion  of  the  burdens  and  the  advantages  of  education  as  was  made 
when  the  census  basis  of  apportionment  was  substituted  for  the 
"  taxes-where-paid  "  basis.  All  districts  or  schools  would  thus 
be  placed  on  a  somewhat  equal  basis  at  the  start ;  what  each  could 
do  afterward  would  depend  on  the  amount  of  taxable  property 
behind  each  school  maintained  and  on  the  efforts  which  a  com- 
munity saw  fit  to  make  for  itself. 

But  even  after  this  approximate  equalization  of  apportionments 
has  been  made  it  will  happen  that  the  (burden  of  providing  the 
remainder  necessary  for  maintenance  will  still  be  very  unequal. 
What  is  a  very  slight  effort  for  one  community  is  an  average 
load  for  another  and  an  excessive  burden  for  a  third.  What  dif- 
ferent communities  will  be  able  to  provide,  too,  will  be  very 
different.  With  the  maximum  local  tax  allowed  by  law  one 
community  will  have  difficulty  in  meeting  the  minimum  require- 
ments set  by  the  state,  while  another  community  with  only  half 
the  allowed  tax-rate  can  do  much  more  than  the  state  requires. 
A  school  located  in  a  rich  farming  section  will  in  all  probability 
be  easier  to  provide  for  than  one  in  a  poor  and  hilly  country ;  a 
city  that  is  to  a  large  extent  a  business  or  a  residence  city  will 
probably  be  able  to  provide  for  its.  schools  better  and  easier  than 
can  an  essentially  manufacturing  city  with  a  large  working-class 
population.  All  the  inequalities  in  the  distribution  of  people  and 
wealth  pointed  out  in  Chapter  II  come  in  to  modify  and  deter- 
mine what  a  community  can  do  for  its  schools. 

Table  No.  5,  Chapter  III,  giving  the  rate  of  tax  levied  and  the 
amount  produced  per  pupil  in  average  mem'bership  at  the  schools, 
with  the  rank  of  the  town  in  each,  for  the  seven  Massachusetts 
towns  levying  the  highest  rate  of  tax,  the  seven  levying  the  low- 
est rate  of  tax,  and  the  seven  largest  cities  in  the  state,  will  serve 
to  illustrate  the  point  very  well.  Nahant,  for  example,  on  a  tax- 
rate  of  i.io  mills  produced  $52.10  per  pupil  in  average  member- 
ship, while  Goshen,  on  a  tax-rate  of  1.50  mills  produced  but 
$4.43  per  pupil,  and  East  Longmeadow,  on  a  tax-rate  of  8.56 
mills  produced  but  $14.17  per  pupil.  Among  the  cities,  Boston, 
on  a  tax-rate  of  2.39  mills  produced  $33.86  per  pupil,  while  Lynn, 
with  a  tax-rate  of  4.56  mills  produced  but  $28.65  Per  Pupil-  The 
detailed  statistical  tables  given  2  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Massa- 
chusetts State  Board  of  Education  for  the  various  Massachusetts 

2  64th  An.  Rept.  Mass.  Bd.  of  Educ.,  1899-1900,  pp.  267-298. 


2O2  .    School  Funds  and  their  Apportionment 

cities  and  towns  for  the  year  1899-190x3,  showing  the  valuation, 
the  rate  of  school  tax,  the  rate  of  all  taxes,  the  per  cent  of  town 
taxes  devoted  to  education,  and  the  cost  of  the  schools  per  pupil, 
give  abundant  illustrations  of  the  inequalities  existing.  The  four 
extreme  cases  at  each  end  of  the  scale,  compared  with  Boston 
and  the  average  for  the  state,  are  given  in  Table  No.  3,  Chap- 
ter III. 

The  comparison  made  in  some  detail  between  the  town  of  Ash- 
ford  and  the  town  of  Putnam,  in  Windham  County,  Connecticut, 
following  Table  No.  8  in  Chapter  IV,  is  a  good  illustration  of 
this  point.  Table  No.  15,  Chapter  IV,  giving  the  highest  and 
the  lowest  rate  of  tax  in  mills  required  to  produce  $250  by  local 
taxation  in  a  number  of  towns  and  counties  in  seven  different 
states  is  a  further  illustration.  The  rate  of  county  tax  which 
would  be  required  to  produce  $10.00  per  child  in  average  daily 
attendance  in  the  different  counties  of  the  State  of  Washington 
as  given  in  Table  No.  20,  Chapter  VI,  is  a  still  further  illustra- 
tion of  the  inequalities  in  taxing  power  of  even  large  groups. 
The  variations  in  taxing  power  among  the  different  towns  of 
Windham  and  Fairfield  counties  in  Connecticut,  as  shown  in 
Tables  No.  7  and  No.  8,  Chapter  IV,  are  still  further  illustra- 
tions, and  show  very  well  how  variations  in  group  averages  mean 
still  wider  variations  among  the  different  members  of  the  groups. 
What  certain  towns  could  do  with  apparent  ease  other  towns 
could  do  only  with  the  greatest  difficulty  or  not  at  all. 

The  third  great  step  in  the  equalization  of  educational  burdens 
and  advantages,  as  was  pointed  out  at  the  close  of  Chapter  VI, 
will  be  taken  when  the  state  gives  definite  recognition  to  these 
inequalities  in  the  taxing  power  by  making  special  grants  to 
necessitous  communities  and,  if  necessary  to  properly  relieve  ex- 
cessive burdens  and  to  equalize  common  advantages,  withdraws 
all  aid  for  the  ordinary  type  of  education  from  those  larger  and 
wealthier  communities  which  have  shown  their  ability  to  fully 
care  for  themselves.  So  far,  if  we  except  the  county  system  of 
distribution  in  use  in  certain  Southern  states,  but  seven  states 
have  made  any  definite  beginning  at  this  form  of  equalization. 

The  New  York  "  district  quota "  apportionment,  which  we 
have  previously  described  in  Chapter  XII,  is  based  on  a  slight 
recognition  of  the  difficulties  which  small  and  poor  communities 
have  in  maintaining  their  schools,  in  that  it  gives  a  larger  initial 


Distribution  on  Effort  and  Need  203 

quota  to  poor  communities  than  to  those  having  greater  wealth.3 
All  districts  with  a  valuation  of  less  than  $40,000  receive  $150 
for  the  first  teacher,  while  those  having  a  valuation  of  over  $40,- 
ooo  receive  only  $125  for  the  first  teacher.  After  the  first  teacher 
the  quota  is  uniformly  $ico  per  teacher  for  all  districts.  This  is 
as  far  as  New  York  has  gone  in  the  matter,  but  even  this  begin- 
ning is  important.  Such  legislation  is  in  accordance  with  what 
an  inspection  of  the  tables  in  Chapter  IV  would  lead  us  to  con- 
clude, viz.,  that,  in  general,  the  greater  the  total  wealth  of  a  com- 
munity the  greater  is  the  average  wealth  behind  each  pupil  in  the 
schools  and  behind  each  school  maintained.  The  long  study 
given  by  the  Massachusetts  school  authorities  to  the  methods  of 
assisting  poor  communities  has  led  to  similar  conclusions  with 
reference  to  the  towns  of  Massachusetts.4 

In  North  Carolina  the  effort  at  equalization  has  taken  the 
form  of  an  attempt  to  secure  a  four  months'  school  in  every 
school  district  of  the  state.  The  state  school  money  is  appor- 
tioned to  the  counties  on  the  census  basis,  and  is  in  turn  appor- 
tioned by  the  counties  to  the  various  townships  on  the  same 
basis,  but  the  state  law  provides  that,  before  making  the  county 
apportionment  on  the  census  basis,  the  County  Board  of  Educa- 
tion shall  set  aside  one-sixth  of  the  total  fund  to  be  apportioned 
by  the  county,  if  so  much  shall  be  necessary,  to  be  used  by  them 
in  equalizing  the  census  basis  apportionment  so  as  to  secure  to 
every  school  in  the  county  a  four  months'  term  of  school.5 
This  reserve  fund  of  one-sixth  not  being  sufficient,  in  many 
counties,  to  secure  a  four  months'  term  to  all  districts,  the 
Legislature  of  1903  appropriated  an  annual  sum  of  $100,000  to 
be  distributed  by  the  State  Board  of  Education,  in  proportion  to 
need,  to  those  districts  where  the  application  of  all  funds  allowed 
by  law  would  still  not  secure  a  four  months'  term  of  school.0 

This  is  a  conscious  and  a  definite  attempt  to  equalize  educa- 
tional advantages  by  direct  state  appropriations  to  poor  counties 
to  enable  them  to  meet  the  minimum  term  requirements  pre- 

8  Consolidated  School  Law  of  N.  Y.,  as  amended  to  June  1903 ;  Title 
II,  Art.  i,  Sec.  6,  div.  I. 

4  66th  An.  Kept.  Mass.  Bd.  of  Educ.,  1901-02,  p.  208. 
8  Public  School  Law  of  N.  Car.,  as  amended  to  1903,  Sec.  24. 
8  "An    Act    to   appropriate    $200,000    to    the   public   schools    of    North 
Carolina,"  ratified  March  9,  1903. 


2O4  School  Funds  and  their  Apportionment 

scribed  by  the  laws  of  the  state.  It  is  not  only  a  wise  example 
of  a  state  attempt  at  the  equalization  of  opportunities,  but  also  a 
good  example  of  state  justice.  The  state,  having  deemed  it  de- 
sirable that  every  child  in  the  state  should  have  the  advantages  of 
at  least  four  months  of  school  each  year  has  made  such  a  general 
legal  requirement,  and  made  it,  as  a  state  should  make  it,  without 
reference  to  whether  or  not  all  townships  were  able  to  meet  the 
demands  of  the  law.  Finding  that  many  were  not  able  to  do  so, 
and  that  the  ordinary  means  provided  were  insufficient,  the  state, 
as  a  state  in  justice  ought  to  do,  made  definite  legal  provision  for 
extra  and  proportional  aid  to  those  poor  communities  unable  to 
meet  the  standards  set  by  the  law. 

In  the  State  of  New  Jersey  the  law  provides  that  90%  of  the 
state  two-and-three-quarter-mill  school  appropriation  and  tax 
shall  be  returned  to  each  county  on  the  basis  of  property  valua- 
tion, as  explained  in  Chapter  VII,  and  that  the  remaining  10% 
shall  be  reserved  to  be  apportioned  "  equitably  and  justly  "  ac- 
cording to  the  discretion  of  the  State  Board  of  Education.7 
This  is  a  means  provided  to  counteract  the  bad  effects  of  the  un- 
desirable method  of  distributing  the  90%. 

So  far  but  little  seems  to  have  been  done  in  the  distribution  of 
the  10%  toward  an  equalization  of  the  real  burdens  of  support.8 
The  distribution  is  made  to  the  counties  as  wholes,  is  there  added 
to  the  general  county  school  fund,  and  is  then  divided  among  all 
districts  in  the  county  instead  of  only  to  those  most  in  need  of 
extra  aid.  The  state  law  requires  that  every  district  in  the  state 
shall  maintain  a  nine  months'  term  of  school  each  year  under 
penalty  of  forfeiting  the  entire  state .  appropriation  and  state 
school  tax,  but  gives  the  State  Superintendent  of  Public  Instruc- 
tion power,  "  for  good  cause  shown,  to  remit  said  penalty."  * 

7  "  Ten  per  centum  of  the  full  amount  of  the  state  school  tax  annually 
raised  shall  be  known  as  a  reserve  fund,  and  shall   *   *   be  apportioned 
among  the  several   counties  by  the  State  Board  of  Education,  equitably 
and  justly  according  .to  its  discretion." 

School  Law  of  New  Jersey,  as  enacted  by  the  2d  Spec.  Ses.  of  the 
I27th  Leg.,  and  Approved  Oct.  19,  1903;  Ch.  I,  Art.  XVII,  Sec.  179. 

8  "  Or  more  concisely  and  definitely  stated,  barring  a  small  contribution 
made  to  two  counties  that  are  much  wealthier  in  school  population  than 
in  taxable  property,  the  state  school  tax  of  each  county  is  returned  to  it." 
An.  Kept.  State  Bd.  Educ.  of  New  Jersey,  1903,  p.  xx. 

9  School  Law  of  New  Jersey,  *  *  approved  Oct.  19,  1903;  Ch.  I,  Art. 
V,  Sec.  37- 


Distribution  on  Effort  and  Need  205 

Notwithstanding  this  provision,  138  of  the  397  districts  in  the 
state  in  1902-03  failed  to  maintain  a  nine  months'  school.10 
With  a  distribution  of  the  reserve  fund  direct  to  the  districts  on 
the  basis  of  local  effort  and  local  need  it  is  probable  that  much 
better  results  could  be  obtained,  and  probably  all  districts  could 
be  brought  up  to  the  nine  months'  standard. 

Th'1  ertnont  attempt  at  equalization  has  been  worked  out  on 
much  better  lines  and  accomplishes  a  real  equalization  of  bur- 
dens, so  far  as  the  money  at  hand  will  go.  Out  of  the  annual 
state  school  tax  of  eight  cents  on  the  one  hundred  dollars,  the 
sum  of  $15,000  is  first  set  aside  for  the  equalization  of  educa- 
tional burdens,  and  the  balance  is  distributed  (Chapter  XII)  "  in 
proportion  to  the  number  of  legal  schools  sustained  the  preceding 
year."  1X  For  the  distribution  of  the  $15,000  set  aside  for  equal- 
ization the  Vermont  law  provides : 

"The  sum  reserved  *  shall  be  divided  among  the  towns  which  raise 
the  higher  per  cent  of  tax  for  school  purposes,  in  order  (to  equalize  taxation 
and  to  afford  equal  school  privileges  as  nearly  as  possible,  at  the  dis- 
cretion of  the  state  treasurer,  the  'State  superintendent  of  schools,  and  the 
examiner  of  teachers  for  Washington  County,  who  are  hereby  constituted 
a  board  of  distribution  for  this  purpose.  But  no  town  shall  receive  any 
portion  of  this  money  unless  said  town  shall  raise  at  least  fifty  cents 
on  the  dollar  on  the  grand  list  of  said  town  for  school  purposes."  12 

This  provides  for  a  real  equalization,  though  the  limits  for 
sharing  may  be  rather  high.  Below  fifty  cents  there  is  of  course 
no  equalization.  Each  town  receives  a  definite  quota  for  each 
"  legal  school "  maintained,  and  then  another  portion,  even 
though  small,  is  given  only  to  those  towns  whose  rate  of  tax  for 
schools  is  over  fifty  cents.  The  object  is  to  eliminate  excessive 
tax-rates  for  the  maintenance  of  what  is  a  common  benefit. 
Each  town  is  given  an  equal  portion,  and  then  those  who  find 
the  greatest  difficulty  in  maintaining  their  schools  are  given  ad- 
ditional aid. 

In  1899  New  Hampshire  made  a  somewhat  similar  small  but 
definite  attempt  t;o  relieve  the  excessive  burdens  for  school  sup- 

10  An.    Rep.    State   Bd.    of  Educ.   New  Jersey,    1903,    statistical    table 
XII,  page  Ixx. 

11  Vermont  Statutes  of  1894,  Title  II,  Ch.  40,  Sec.  762. 

12  Vermont  Statutes  of  1894,  Title  II,  Ch.  40,  Sec.  76ib,  as  amended 
by  the  Laws  of  1902,  No.  30,  Sec.  2. 


206  School  Funds  and  their  Apportionment 

port  borne  by  the  poorer  towns  of  that  state.  The  income  from 
the  Literary  Fund  13  being  small,  and  being  distributed  on  the 
basis  of  a  two  weeks'  enrollment  in  the  schools,14  tends  rather 
to  increase  the  inequalities  than  to  relieve  the  burdens  on  poor 
and  sparsely  settled  towns  (see  Table  No.  48,  Chapter  XI,  for 
the  results  of  an  enrollment  distribution).  In  1899  an  annual 
appropriation  of  $18,750  was  made  from  the  state  treasury  to  be 
paid  to  those  towns  most  in  need  of  additional  assistance.  The 
New  Hampshire  law  provides  as  follows: 10 

This  sum  "  shall  be  paid  by  the  state  treasurer  in  December  of  each 
year  to  all  towns  of  the  state  in  which  the  equalized  valuation  is  less 
than  $3,000  for  each  child  of  the  average  daily  attendance  in  the  public 
schools  of  such  towns  during  the  school  year  next  preceding,  and  such 
other  towns  as  may  be  added,  *  *  *  in  direct  proportion  to  the  equalized 
valuation  per  child.  *  *  The  governor  and  council  may,  upon  recommen- 
dation of  the  superintendent  of  public  instruction,  add  to  the  class  of 
towns  specified  above  such  other  towns  as  may  seem  from  their  peculiar 
conditions  to  need  relief  from  too  great  a  burden  of  school  taxation." 

The  statistics  as  to  the  aid  granted  in  December,  1902,  under 
the  provisions  of  this  act  show  that  1(i  aid  was  granted  to  seventy- 
two  towns,  only  two  of  which  had  a  total  valuation  as  high  as 
one  million  dollars.  In  amount  the  aid  granted  was  as  follows : 

Towns  Valuation  per  pupil  Highest  aid.  Lowest  Aid. 

7  Over   $1,700   and    under   $2,000               $590.27                 $56.06 
34  "         2,000      "                    3,000                 966.13                   74.81 
23  "        3,000      "                   4,000                 77378                  i8.ii 

8  "        4,000     "  4,900  19302  25.11 

Thirty-one  towns  above  the  $3,000  limit  have  thus  been  added 
under  the  discretionary  power  granted  to  the  governor  and 
council,  on  the  recommendation  of  the  superintendent  of  public 
instruction.  This  provision  for  the  addition  of  other  towns,  if 
deemed  wise  by  some  responsible  body,  is  a  wise  provision  of 

13  This  was  worth  fifty  cents  per  pupil  enrolled  for  two  weeks  for  the 
year  1902. 

14  See  footnote  6,  Chapter  X. 

15  "An  act  to  equalize  the  school  privileges  of  the  cities  and  towns  of 
the  state  " ;  Ch.  77,  N.  Hamp.  Scs.  Laws  of  1899,  Sec.  6. 

1C  Kept.  Supt.  Pub.  Instr.  N.  Hampshire,  1901-02,  pp.  317-318. 


Distribution  on  Effort  and  Need  207 

this  act.  However  carefully  a  law  may  be  framed,  there  will  be 
certain  deserving  communities  which  are  debarred  by  the  limits 
set  by  the  law,  and  yet  these  limits  could  not  be  widened  without 
including  many  communities  which  are  not  deserving  of  aid. 
Any  such  legislation  must  of  necessity  be  in  the  nature  of  com- 
promise with  a  view  to  doing  justice  to  the  greatest  number,  and 
a  provision  making  the  admission  of  certain  other  deserving  or 
peculiarly  situated  communities  discretionary  with  some  inter- 
ested and  responsible  educational  body  is  a  very  valuable  addi- 
tion to  such  a  law. 

These  efforts  of  Vermont  and  New  Hampshire  to  equalize  the 
burdens  of  taxation  for  schools  are  especially  noteworthy,  and 
the  beginnings  which  they  have  made  serve  as  a  good  example 
to  other  states.  It  is  very  desirable  that  the  future  should  see  a 
somewhat  general  adoption  of  some  similar  provision  for  equal- 
izing the  burdens  and  the  advantages  of  education. 

An  inspection  of  the  last  three  columns  of  Tables  No.  7  and 
No.  8,  Chapter  IV,  giving  the  rate  of  tax  in  mills  required  to 
produce  $250  per  teacher  employed,  the  rate  of  local  tax  actually 
levied,  and  the  cost  per  pupil  in  average  daily  attendance  and  for 
maintenance  only  in  each  of  the  towns  of  Windham  County 
(Table  No.  7)  and  Fairfield  County  (Table  No.  8)  in  Connec- 
ticut, shows,  as  we  pointed  out  in  Chapter  IV,  the  presence  of 
very  great  inequalities  in  the  taxing  power  of  the  different 
towns.  A  high  tax-rate  with  a  low  expenditure  per  pupil,  and 
a  low  tax-rate  with  a  high  expenditure  per  pupil,  very  frequently 
go  together.  The  distribution  of  $2.25  per  capita  to  the  towns 
by  the  state  on  the  census  basis  only  tends  to  increase  the  in- 
equalities in  tax-rate  as  between  the  poor  and  sparsely  settled 
towns  and  the  wealthier  and  more  densely  populated  towns. 
Yet  the  state  law  demands  that  every  town  shall  maintain  a  nine 
months'  term  of  school  in  every  school  in  the  town.  This  is  a 
uniform  demand,  and  one  which  the  towns  have  very  unequal 
resources  to  meet.  There  are  only  two  ways  of  meeting  such  a 
demand  unaided.  One  is  to  raise  very  high  taxes;  the  other  is 
to  employ  very  cheap  teachers.  An  inspection  of  the  statistical 
tables  for  these  Connecticut  towns  would  indicate  that  they  are 
usually  forced  to  adopt  a  combination  of  both  ways. 

To  in  part  relieve  the  burdens  of  local  taxation  in  the  poorer 
towns  the  Connecticut  legislature  passed  a  law  in  1903,  on  the 


208  School  Funds  and  their  Apportionment 

recommendation  17  of  the  Secretary  of  the  State  Board  of  Edu- 
cation, the  aim  of  which  was  to  equalize  the  burdens  of  school 
taxation.  It  was  calculated,18  at  the  time  the  law  was  proposed, 
that  if  every  eligible  town  in  the  state  took  advantage  of  the 
provisions  of  the  law  the  added  cost  to  the  state  would  be  but 
$57,000.  The  law  as  enacted  provides : 19 

"  Sec.  208.  Every  town  having  a  valuation  of  less  than  $500,000  may 
annually  receive  from  the  treasurer  of  the  state,  upon  the  order  of  the 
comptroller,  a  sum  which  will  enable  the  town  to  annually  expend  for 
the  support  of  public  school  $25.00  for  each  child  in  average  daily  at- 
tendance, as  determined  by  the  attested  registers  for  the  school  years 
ending  July  I4th ;  provided,  the  payments  of  principle  or  interest  on  in- 
debtedness, the  expense  of  new  buildings,  sites,  and  permanent  improve- 
ments shall  not  be  included  in  obtaining  the  cost  of  each  scholar  in 
average  daily  attendance ;  and  provided,  that  the  said,  state  grant  shall  be 
expended  only  for  teachers'  wages. 

"  Sec.  209.  The  comptroller  shall  not  draw  an  order  in  favor  of  a 
town  under  the  provisions  of  Sec.  208  unless  the  town,  in  the  year  for 
which  said  average  attendance  grant  is  made,  shall  have  laid  and  col- 
lected a  tax  of  not  less  than  four  mills  on  its  grand  list  for  the  support 
of  schools  and  shall  have  expended  the  same." 

This  law  is  practically  a  statement  by  the  state  that  a  town 
with  a  total  valuation  of  less  than  half  a  million  of  dollars  shall 
not  be  asked  to  raise  more  than  four  mills  of  school  tax  each  year 
for  the  support  of  schools,  and  is  in  effect  an  attempt  to  equalize 
both  the  advantages  of  education  and  the  rate  of  taxation  for 
schools.  The  advantages  of  education  are  equalized  to  $25.00  a 
year  to  each  child  in  average  daily  attendance,  and  the  burdens 
to  the  parent  are  equalized  to  four  mills  of  tax  for  the  support 
of  the  school  to  which  he  sends  his  child.  How  much  a  school 
will  have  to  spend  will  now  depend  on  how  economically  the 
schools  of  each  town  are  managed,  and  how  well  the  town  looks 
after  the  attendance  of  its  pupils.  The  great  freedom  given  the 
towns  of  Connecticut  in  the  formation  of  districts,  without  limi- 
tations as  to  size,  has  led  in  many  towns  to  the  undue  multiplica- 
tion of  small  districts.  Towns  having  numbers  of  these  small 
districts  would  of  course  receive  but  a  small  amount  of  money 

17  Report  Conn.  Bd.  of  Educ.,  1903,  p.  38. 

18  Report  Conn.  Bd.  of  Educ.,  1903,  p.  10. 

19  Laws  of  1903,  Ch.  102,  Sees.  I,  2;  Conn.  Laws  relating  to  Schools, 
1904,  Sees.  208,  209. 


Distribution  on  Effort  and  Need  209 

per  school,  but  towns  which  have  properly  consolidated  their 
schools  would  receive  a  liberal  allowance.  This  may  be  shown 
by  calculating  the  amounts  which  two  towns  in  Windham  County 
(Table  No.  7,  Chapter  IV)  would  receive  in  aid  under  the  pro- 
visions of  this  law.  The  town  of  Canterbury,  in  Windham 
County,  for  example,  had  a  school  census  of  156,  an  average 
daily  attendance  of  119,  and  maintained  n  schools.  This  would 
ensure  an  average  of  $270.45  per  school  for  maintenance,  and, 
under  the  district  system  in  use,  from  $125  to  $375  per  school.20 
The  next  town  in  the  same  county,  alphabetically,  the  town  of 
Chaplin,  had  a  school  census  of  102,  an  average  daily  attendance 
of  60,  and  maintained  3  schools.  This  would  give  this  town  an 
average  of  $500  per  school  for  maintenance.  The  Connecticut 
law  thus  places  a  premium  on  the  town  as  opposed  to  the  district 
system  of  management,  and  on  the  concentration  of  schools  in- 
stead of  their  further  subdivision.  These  are  two  very  desirable 
things  upon  which  to  place  a  premium  in  Connecticut.  It  also 
places  a  decided  premium  on  regularity  of  attendance  at  the 
school.  No  recognition  is  given  to  the  teacher  unit  as  such,  but 
under  the  unrestricted  conditions  for  the  formation  of  new  dis- 
tricts by  the  towns,  and  in  view  of  the  large  number  of  small 
districts  which  exist  in  some  of  the  towns,21  this  would  have 
been  unwise.  No  discretionary  power  is  given  to  any  one  to  add 
towns  of  a  higher  valuation  than  half  a  million  dollars,  but 
whose  peculiar  circumstances  make  some  special  aid  desirable. 

In  the  state  of  Massachusetts  a  studied  effort  has  been  made 
for  over  three  decades  to  apportion  the  small  amount  of  money 
at  hand  so  as  to  obtain  the  largest  results  from  its  distribution. 
The  income  from  the  Massachusetts  school  fund  has  been  and 
still  is  so  small  that  its  value  as  a  general  equalizer  would  be 
slight,  and  this  has  forced  Massachusetts  to  devise  a  better  sys- 
tem for  the  apportionment  of  its  fund  than  any  uniform  basis. 
For  the  year  1901-02  the  amount  distributed  to  the  towns  22  was 

20  Calculated    from   the    census    data    for    each   district    and    the  town 
average  of  73.7%  of  census  in  average  daily  attendance. 

Annual  Rept.  Conn.  Bd.  of  Educ.,  1903,  pp.  312,  275. 

21  See  the  table  giving  the  enumeration  of  children  by  districts  in  each 
of  the  towns  of  the  state,  given  in  the  'Statistical  tables  in  the  Rept.  Conn. 
Bd.  of  Education  for  any  year. 

22  66th   An.   Rept.   Mass.  Bd.    of  Educ.,   1901-02,   in  "Abstract  of  the 
Massachusetts  School  Returns,"  p.  xcii. 


210  School  Funds  and  their  Apportionment 

only  $182,270.84.  The  school  census  of  September,  igoi,  showed 
483,103  children  in  the  state,  5  to  15  years  of  age,  and  the 
average  attendance  in  all  schools  for  the  year  23  was  380,026. 
These  figures  would  give  an  apportionment  on  census  of  thirty- 
eight  cents  per  capita,  and  an  apportionment  on  average  daily 
attendance  of  forty-eight  cents.  This  is  about  a  half  larger  per 
capita  than  the  Iowa  apportionment  and  about  half  the  size  of 
the  Kansas  apportionment.  The  problem  which  Massachusetts 
has  attempted  to  solve  is  how  to  use  this  little  sum  of  money  so 
as  to  equalize,  as  nearly  as  is  possible,  the  burdens  and  advant- 
ages of  education  to  all.  The  result  has  been  the  evolution  of  a 
system  of  graded  aid,  granted  only  to  the  poorer  towns  of  the 
state. 

The  principles  which  have  actuated  Massachusetts  from  the 
first  have  been  to  stimulate  the  towns  to  make  greater  efforts  for 
their  own  schools  and  to  withdraw  aid  from  the  towns  and  cities 
whenever  their  growth  and  increase  in  wealth  made  assistance  no 
longer  necessary. 

In  1841  Massachusetts  definitely  gave  up  total  population  as  a 
basis  for  the  apportionment  of  the  income  from  the  state  fund, 
the  basis  of  distribution  being  changed  to  the  number  of  children 
of  the  school  census  age.  The  census  basis  of  apportionment 
was  used  as  the  sole  basis  until  1866,  when  a  combination  type 
of  apportionment  was  introduced,  somewhat  similar  to  that  in 
use  at  present  in  the  states  of  Oregon  and  Wyoming.  Each 
town  or  city  was  first  to  receive  a  district  or  town  quota  of 
$75.00,  which  in  1869  was  raised  to  $100.00,  and  then  the  balance 
was  distributed  to  the  different  cities  and  towns  on  the  census 
basis.  In  1870  this  first  or  town  quota  used  up  about  one-half 
of  the  total  fund  for  distribution,  which  in  that  year  was  only 
$70,637.62.  In  1872  the  Secretary  of  the  State  Board  of  Educa- 
tion devoted  much  space  in  his  annual  Report,  as  we  have  pre- 
viously explained  in  Chapter  III,  to  pointing  out  the  inequalities 
in  taxing  power  which  existed  among  the  various  towns,  and 
recommended  a  state  half-mill  tax,  the  proceeds  to  be  distributed 
to  the  towns  on  the  basis  of  their  school  census.  The  legislature 
not  seeing  fit  to  adopt  this  recommendation,  in  1874  the  entire 
plan  for  the  apportionment  of  the  income  from  the  school  fund 

23  Ibid.,  p.  Ixxxviii. 


Distribution  on  Effort  and  Need  211 

was  revised  and  a  new  plan  adopted  so  as  to  secure  better  results. 
Acting  on  the  principle  that  the  larger  the  actual  wealth  of  a  town 
the  larger  the  per  capita  wealth  behind  each  pupil  in  the  schools,24 
aid  was  entirely  withdrawn  from  all  towns  and  cities  having  a 
total  valuation  of  over  $10,000,000.  This  excluded  18  cities  and 
towns  from  and  share  in  the  apportionment.  In  1891  the  basis 
was  changed  still  further  by  withdrawing  aid  from  all  towns  and 
cities  having  a  valuation  of  over  $3,000,000.  In  1896,  98  towns 
and  cities  were  excluded  from  any  share  in  the  apportionment. 
These  98  towns  and  cities  contained  82%  of  the  population  of 
the  state. 

It  was  further  found  that  no  mere  property  valuation  or 
school  population  basis  would  afford  adequate  and  equitable  re- 
lief to  such  small  towns  as  those  given  in  Table  No.  2,  Chapter 
III,  so  a  graded  plan  of  aid  was  devised  whereby  towns  of  this 
class  should  receive  an  amount  in  inverse  proportion  to  their 
valuation,  the  towns  being  at  the  same  time  forbidden  to  de- 
crease their  efforts  to  aid  themselves  and  a  premium  being 
placed,  in  the  distribution  of  a  portion  of  the  aid  granted,  on  the 
amount  of  local  taxation  which  the  towns  devote  to  education. 
In  1895  additional  aid  was  granted  to  towns  having  a  valuation 
of  not  over  $500,000  for  the  payment  of  high  school  tuition  and 
for  the  transportation  of  pupils,  and  in  1896  additional  aid  was 
granted  to  towns  having  a  valuation  of  less  than  $350,000  for 
the  payment  of  teachers'  salaries.25 

Inequalities  having  arisen  under  the  plan  in  use,  due  to  chang- 
ing conditions  in  the  towns,  the  Secretary  of  the  State  Board  of 
Education  in  1900  urged  a  further  revision,  and  gave  detailed 
statistics  to  show  the  inequalities  which  had  come  to  exist.26  In 
1903  the  plan  for  the  apportionment  of  the  income  from  the 
school  fund  was  further  revised  and  all  towns  having  a  total 
valuation  of  over  $2,500,000  were  excluded  from  any  share  in 
the  apportionment.  This  excluded  136  cities  and  towns  and 

24  See  Tables  No.  3,  No.  4,  No.  5,  Chapter  III.    Also  see  the  66th  An. 
Kept.  Mass.  Bd.  of  Educ.,  1901-02,  p.  208. 

25  The  above  historical  data  has  been  taken   from  the  history  of  the 
development  of  the  system  of  distribution  as  given  in  the  following: 

(1)  64th  An.  Rept.  Mass.  Board  of  Educ.,  1899-1900,  pp.  17-18. 

(2)  Whitten,  R.  H.,  Public  Administration  in  Massachusetts,  pp.  33-35. 
28  64th  An.  Rept.  Mass.  Board  of  Educ.,  1899-1900,  pp.  259-298. 


212  School  Funds  and  their  Apportionment 

88.4%  of  the  school  population.     The  law  at  present  provides  for 
the  distribution  of  the  income  as  follows : 2T 

1.  A  direct  grant  to  each  town,  analagous  to  the  "district  quota." 

(a)  If  total  valuation  is  under  $500,000  a  grant  of  $500;  and  if  the 
total  town  tax-rate  exceeded  18  mills,  an  additional  grant  of  $75. 

(b)  If  valuation  of  $500,000  to  $1,000,000;  a  grant  of  $300. 

(c)  If  valuation  of  $1,000,000  to  $2,000,000;  a  grant  of  $150. 

(d)  If  valuation  of  $2,000,000  to  $2,500,000;  a  grant  of  $75. 

2.  The  remainder  to  be  distributed  to  the  towns  on  the  basis  of  the  pro- 
portion of  the  total  town  tax  devoted  to  schools,  as  follows : 

(a)  If  one-third  of  total,  a  proportion  of  the  remainder  expressed 
one-third. 

(b)  In  a  similar  manner,  if  one-fourth,  then  one-fourth;  if  one-fifth, 
then  one-fifth ;  and  if  one-sixth,  then  one-sixth. 

3.  To  be  entitled  to  this  grant  a  town  must  have:  28 

(a)  Maintained  a  sufficient  number  of  schools  for  eight  months.29 

(b)  If  the  town  has  500  families  or  householders  it  must  also  have 
maintained  a  high  'school  for  nine  months. 

(c)  Made  all  school  reports,  as  required. 

(d)  Complied  with  the  laws  relative  to  truancy. 

(e)  Raised  by  local  taxation  for  the  support  of  schools  an  amount 
not  less  than  $3.00  per  census  child.30 

The  Massachusetts  plan  for  an  equalized  distribution  is  thus 
based  entirely  on  valuation  and  tax  proportions.  Pupils,  attend- 
ance, and  the  actual  value  of  the  tax  are  disregarded,  except  in 
the  one  case  of  towns  of  less  than  $500,000  valuation.  This  plan 
has  been  worked  out  somewhat  carefully,  and  probably  gives 
good  results  in  actual  practice,  but  theoretically  it  is  open  to 
certain  serious  abjections.  Two  towns  might  be  in  the  same 
class  as  to  valuation  and  yet  one  have  twice  as  many  pupils  as 
the  other,  and  be  so  situated  that  it  would  be  required  to  maintain 
twice  as  many  schools.  Also  of  two  towns  in  the  same  class,  the 
one  having  the  larger  number  of  pupils  and  schools  might  have 
the  lower  taxable  valuation.  The  state  grant  under  I  would, 
however,  be  the  same  to  each  in  either  of  these  cases.  Again, 

27  Mass.  Acts  of  1903,  Ch.  456,  Sec.  i,  amending  Ch.  41,  Sec.  3  of  the 
Revised  Laws  of  Mass. 

28  Rev.  Laws  of  Mass  relating  to  Pub.  Instr.,  1901,  Ch.  41,  Sec.  6. 

29  If  the  total  valuation  of  a  town  is  less  than  $200,000  the  State  Board 
of  Education  may  consent  to  seven  months.     Practically  all  towns  provide 
eight  months.     See  footnote  19,   Chapter  III. 

30  This  provision   has   remained  unchanged  since    1865.    Mass  Acts  of 
1865,  142,  Sec.  i. 


Distribution  on  Effort  and  Need  213 

under  2,  a  town  might  devote  a  large  proportion  of  its  total  tax 
to  schools  (say  one-third)  and  still  levy  a  low  total  tax  (say  five 
mills),  while  another  town  might  devote  but  a  small  proportion 
of  its  total  tax  to  schools  (say  one-sixth)  and  yet  levy  a  high 
total  tax  (say  fifteen  mills),  in  which  case  the 'first  town  would 
receive  twice  as  much  money  from  the  school  fund  under  2  and 
yet  have  made  but  one-third  of  the  actual  effort  of  the  second 
town,  and  also  have  devoted  one-third  less  money  (1.66  mills  as 
against  2.50  mills)  to  its  schools.  It  might  easily  happen  under 
such  a  plan  that  a  town  a  little  over  the  valuation  set  for  sharing 
in  the  apportionment  would  have  a  smaller  valuation  behind  each 
pupil  taught  or  each  school  maintained  than  a  town  which 
shared,  and  might  be  compelled  to  devote  a  larger  proportion  of 
its  total  taxes  for  schools  than  other  towns  of  a  smaller  valuation. 

A  method  of  distribution  based  more  on  the  actual  number  of 
mills  of  tax  required,  the  relation  which  the  income  from  this 
maximum  tax  bore  to  the  number  of  children  in  the  schools,  and 
to  the  entire  tax-rate  of  the  towns,  would  seem  to  have  been  a 
more  equitable  plan  than  the  one  now  used.  The  limitation  as  to 
sharing  based  on  the  total  valuation  of  the  towns  need  not  neces- 
sarily be  changed,  though  discretionary  power  given  to  the  State 
Board  of  Education  to  admit  certain  other  especially  deserving 
towns  which,  due  to  their  peculiar  circumstances,  find  great  diffi- 
culty in  maintaining  their  schools,  would  be  a  desirable  addition 
to  such  a  law. 

The  Massachusetts  plan  could  be  still  further  improved  if  a 
decidedly  larger  sum  were  placed  at  the  disposal  of  the  author- 
ities for  distribution  to  necessitous  towns.  A  state  tax  of  half 
a  mill  could  be  made  of  great  service  in  relieving  excessive 
burdens  and  in  improving  the  quality  of  the  teaching  force  in  the 
smaller  and  poorer  towns. 

The  Massachusetts  plan  further  places  no  premium  on  any 
educational  effort  other  than  the  per  cent  of  taxes  devoted  to 
schools.  In  this  respect  the  Connecticut  plan,  with  its  emphasis 
on  daily  attendance,  would  seem  to  be  much  more  desirable. 

A  method  of  apportioning  funds  which  gives  some  considera- 
tion to  the  needs  of  a  community  and  the  efforts  which  it  makes 
to  help  itself  would  seem  to  be  a  valuable  adjunct  to  any  general 
apportionment  plan,  whatever  might  be  the  bases  used  for  ap- 
portionment or  the  size  of  the  per  capita  apportionment.  Where 


214  School  Funds  and  their  Apportionment 

the  per  capita  amount  to  be  apportioned  is  small,  as  in  Massa- 
chusetts, and  where  the  variations  in  valuation  are  so  great  as 
they  are  there,  an  apportionment  on  the  basis  of  need  and  effort 
would  seem  to  be  the  only  just  basis  for  the  distribution  of  so 
small  a  sum.  In  states  where  the  per  capita  amount  apportioned 
is  much  larger,  as  for  example  in  Indiana,  the  method  is  capable 
of  much  use  as  a  partial  basis  of  apportionment.  A  reserve 
fund  of  5%  of  the  total  state  apportionment,  reserved  for  pur- 
poses of  equalization,  to  be  distributed  by  the  State  Board  of 
Education  according  to  its  discretion,  and  to  those  townships 
which  had  already  raised  a  certain  maximum  of  tax  and  were 
still  unable  to  meet  the  minimum  demands  of  the  state,  and  to 
such  other  peculiarly  situated  communities  as  seem  to  be  par- 
ticularly in  need  of  special  aid,  would  be  of  very  great  educational 
service.  Not  only  could  all  schools  be  brought  up  to  the  mini- 
mum legal  requirements  as  to  length  of  term,  kind  of  school 
maintained,  salary  paid  the  teacher,  etc.,  but  it  is  very  probable 
that  a  month  could  be  added  to  the  required  minimum  length  of 
term  for  all  schools  in  the  state,  even  while  retaining  the  objec- 
tionable census  method  of  apportioning  the  remainder. 

The  usual  method  employed,  when  certain  communities  cannot 
meet  the  demands  of  the  state,  is  either  to  increase  the  general 
tax  or  to  increase  the  limits  of  local  taxation.  The  first  plan, 
under  the  common  census  basis  of  distribution,  merely  increases 
the  dividend  to  all,  without  regard  to  their  need  or  effort.  The 
second  plan  merely  gives  legal  permission  to  communities  to  in- 
crease their  own  burdens  of  local  taxation,  which  is  usually  not 
done  and  which  in  any  case  affords  no  real  relief.  The  second 
plan  has  recently  been  employed  in  Indiana,  the  legislature  of 
1903  increasing  the  local  tax  limit 31  from  3.5  mills  to  5.0  mills 
in  an  effort  to  secure  the  legal  minimum  term  of  six  months  to 
every  school  in  the  state.32  This  is  probably  as  high  a  tax  as 
the  poorer  townships  can  possibly  pay,  probably  as  high  a  tax 
for  support  as  they  ought  to  be  asked  to  pay,  and  probably  a 
higher  tax  than  many  communities  will  feel  that  they  can  pay, 
yet  a  six  months'  school  is  not  as  long  a  term  as  the  schools  of 
Indiana  ought  to  have.  Were  the  Indiana  legislature  to  amend 
the  law  further  and  require  a  seven  months'  term  of  all  schools 

31  Indiana  Acts  of  1903,  p.  409. 

32  For  a  statement  of  conditions  existing1  see  Chapter  II. 


Distribution  on  Effort  and  Need  215 

in  the  state,  and  set  aside  5%  of  the  annual  state  apportionment 
as  a  reserve  fund  to  be  used  in  helping  those  townships  which 
have  raised  a  five-mill  tax  and  are  still  unable  to  meet  the  re- 
quirements of  the  law,  and  give  the  State  Board  of  Education 
discretionary  power  to  help  any  township  which  has  raised  a 
school  tax  of  at  least  three  and  a  half  mills  for  "  common 
schools/'  and  which,  due  to  peculiar  conditions,  stands  in  special 
need  of  extra  help,  a  seven  months'  term  could  in  all  probability 
be  had  in  every  school  in  the  state,  and  possibly  even  a  longer 
term.  A  reserve  fund  of  5%  would  provide  about  $115,000  for 
the  purpose.33  No  city  school  and  no  town  school  would  need 
to  be  assisted,  as  no  city  had  less  than  160  days  of  school  in 
1903-04,  and  the  towns  of  but  16  of  the  92  counties  averaged  less 
than  140  days  of  school,  and  all  this  under  the  three  and  a  half 
mill  limit,  as  the  five  mill  limit  would  produce  funds  for  the 
schools  for  the  school  year  1904-05  for  the  first  time.  This 
would  leave  about  thirty  to  thirty-five  counties,  or  about  one- 
third  of  the  total  number,  to  which  some  extra  aid  would  need 
to  be  given  for  the  .township  schools,  and  $115,000  ought  to  be 
ample  for  this  purpose.  This  calculation  is  made  on  the  theory 
that  the  remaining  95%  would  continue  to  be  apportioned  on  the 
census  basis.  The  adoption  of  a  combination  type  of  apportion- 
ment, using  the  teacher  basis  combined  with  the  attendance 
basis,  would  reduce  the  number  of  counties  to  be  aided  and 
would  enable  the  state  to  further  increase  the  minimum  term 
with  the  same  funds  now  at  hand. 

The  conditions  which  exist  in  Indiana  exist  in  many  Western 
states.  It  is  quite  common  in  these  states  to  closely  limit  the 
amount  of  tax  which  a  township  or  district  can  levy,  and  many 
districts  find  themselves  unable  to  meet  the  requirements  of  the 
law.  In  many  of  these  states  the  apportionment  of  a  reserve 
fund  on  the  basis  of  effort  and  need  would  be  of  very  great  ser- 
vice. Two  examples  will  serve  to  illustrate  this. 

The  Nebraska  law  provides  that  the  voters  of  each  school  dis- 
trict, in  annual  meeting  assembled,  shall  determine  the  rate  of  tax 
for  the  ensuing  year  and  the  length  of  time  the  schools  shall  be 
taught,  "  which  shall  not  be  less  than  three  months  *  *  in  a  dis- 
trict having  less  than  twenty  pupils  of  school  age,  nor  less  than 

33  The  total  apportionment  for  1904  was  $2,223,714.78.  Bien.  Rept.  Supt. 
Pub.  Insir.,  Indiana,  1904,  statistical  tables  6a  and  6b. 


2i 6  School  Funds  and  their  Apportionment 

six  months  in  a  district  having  between  twenty  and  seventy-five 
pupils  inclusive,  nor  less  than  nine  months  in  districts  having 
more  than  seventy-five  pupils  of  school  age.  *  *  *  Provided, 
That  no  district  shall  be  deprived  of  its  proportionate  share  of 
state  school  fund  when  it  shall  appear  *  *  that  the  district  has 
in  good  faith  raised  and  expended  the  maximum  tax  allowed  by 
law  and  the  funds  so  raised  have  been  insufficient  to  maintain  a 
school  for  the  time  herein  provided."  34 

The  recent  Reports  85  of  the  State  Superintendent  of  Public 
Instruction  give  the  following  information  as  to  the  number  of 
districts,  length  of  term,  and  state  apportionment  during  the  past 
three  years : 

iqoi-02      IQ02-03     iqos  04 

Total  number  of  school  districts 6,666  6,669  6,667 

Districts  having  9  or  more  months 1,787  1,782  1,792 

Districts  having  6  but  less  than  9  months...        3,774  3,863  3>92* 

Districts  having  3  ibut  less  than  6  months . . .           805  697  648 

Districts  having  less  than  3  months 300  327  306 

Total  state  apportionment  to  all  districts $734,362  $645,356  $698,771 

With  reference  to  these  conditions  the  State  Superintendent  has 
said,  in  a  recent  Report : 36 

"Under  our  existing  revenue  laws  25  mills,  the  present  limit,  is  en- 
tirely inadequate  for  the  needs  of  hundreds  of  districts  in  Nebraska  that 
are  voting  this  limit,  and  maintaining  from  three  to  six  months  of  school 
and  paying  their  teachers  from  $20.00  to  $30.00  per  month.  I  therefore 
urge  upon  the  legislature  to  provide  relief  by  making  30  mills,  exclusive 
of  bonded  indebtedness,  the  limit  of  taxation  for  all  school  districts  in 
the  state  except  those  organized  under  Subdivision  XVII,  Schools  in 
Metropolitan  Cities.  This  amendment  need  not  effect  the  thousands  of 
districts  that  are  voting  below  the  25  mill  limit." 

This  is  the  same  means  of  relief  adopted  in  Indiana,  and  it  does 
not  afford  any  real  relief.  If  from  10%  to  15%  of  the  Nebraska 
state  apportionment  were  set  aside  each  year  as  a  reserve  fund, 
to  be  apportioned  by  the  State  Board  of  Education  and  according 
to  its  discretion,  to  such  districts  as  have  levied  the  maximum 
tax  allowed  by  law  and  yet  cannot  meet  the  requirements  of  the 
state,  and  possibly  with  discretionary  power  to  grant  aid  to  dis- 

3 *  School  and  Land  Laws  of  Nebraska,  1903,  Subdiv.  II,  Sec.  14. 

35  i?th  and  i8th  Bien.  Reports  State  Supt.  Publ.  Instr.  Nebraska,  statis- 
tical summary. 

36  Kept.  State  Supt.  Pub.  Instr.  Nebraska,  1902,  Vol.  II,  p.  1000. 


Distribution  on  Effort  and  Need  217 

tricts  which  have  levied  20  mills  and  from  their  peculiar  situation 
seem  to  need  relief,  a  real  relief  from  the  burdens  of  excessive 
local  taxation  could  be  at  once  provided  for.  From  the  state 
statistical  returns  there  seems  every  probability  that  by  the  adop- 
tion of  this  form  of  relief  all  schools  in  the  state  could  be  brought 
up  to  at  least  a  six  months'  standard  and  the  undesirable  and 
illogical  distinction  between  districts  as  to  length  of  term  could 
be  done  away  with  entirely.  Because  a  child  is  unfortunate 
enough  to  happen  to  live  in  an  arbitrarily  formed  area  where 
there  are  less  than  twenty  children  5  to  21  years  of  age  is  no 
reason  why  he  should  be  provided  with  only  half  the  term  of 
school  of  another  child  in  a  neighboring  artificially  formed  area 
where  twenty-five  or  thirty  such  children  happen  to  live.  By  the 
reservation  of  a  reserve  fund  of  sufficient  size  and  with  an  intel- 
ligent distribution  of  the  same  it  might  be  possible  for  the  state 
to  provide  for  a  uniform  minimum  school  term  of  seven  months 
for  all  children  in  the  state.  No  constitutional  requirements 
stand  in  the  way  of  any  intelligent  action.37 

The  State  of  Oregon  also  affords  another  good  example.  On 
page  169  we  gave  figures  for  length  of  term  in  the  schools  of 
the  state.  The  limit  as  to  length  of  term  below  which  a  district 
may  not  go  is  three  months.  In  1901-02  as  many  as  239  districts 
had  only  a  three  months'  term  of  school; 38  130  districts  had  only 
a  four  months'  term ;  297  districts  a  five  months'  term ;  329  dis- 
tricts a  six  months'  term,  etc.  The  length  of  term  required  by 
law  cannot  be  increased  very  easily,  because  some  counties  have 
such  a  low  per  capita  valuation  that  the  county  school  tax  and 
the  local  taxes  which  may  be  levied  by  the  districts  do  not  give 
sufficient  funds  to  maintain  a  much  longer  term.  The  state  ap- 
portionment of  the  income  from  the  school  fund  is  made  on 
census,  and  the  amount  is  relatively  small.  For  1903-04  the 
amount  apportioned  was  only  $241,234.48,  or  about  $1.68  per 
census  child.39  By  the  use  of  a  portion  of  this  amount  as  a  re- 
serve fund  for  the  purpose  of  partially  equalizing  school  term 
and  school  taxes,  and  by  requiring  a  local  district  tax  of  two,  or 
three,  or  possibly  even  four  mills  as  a  prerequisite  to  sharing  in 

37  See  footnote  53,  Chapter  VI. 

38  Bien.  Kept.  Supt.  Pub.  Instr.,  Oregon,  1902,  p.  237. 

39  i6th  Bien.  Kept.  Supt.  Pub.  Instr.,  Oregon,  1905,  pp.  8,  12. 


218  School  Funds  and  their  Apportionment 

this  extra  apportionment,  it  would  probably  be  possible,  by  the 
adoption  of  some  such  plan  for  equalization  as  that  in  use  in 
Connecticut,  to  provide  a  six,  and  probably  a  seven  months'  term 
of  school  for  every  school  in  Oregon.  This,  of  course,  would  not 
be  possible  without  an  amendment  to  the  Oregon  state  constitu- 
tion, but  such  an  amendment  would  be  worth  working  for. 

Both  the  single  basis  and  the  combination  basis  types  of  ap- 
portionment provide  for  an  impartial  distribution  to  all  according 
to  a  uniform  law.  Of  the  two,  the  combination  basis  type  can 
be  made  to  equalize  burdens  and  advantages  very  much  better 
than  any  single  basis  which  may  be  employed.  By  calculation 
from  statistical  data,  a  combination  basis  plan  which  would  give 
very  equitable  results,  provided  sufficient  funds  were  at  hand  to 
carry  it  out,  could  be  worked  out  in  detail  for  any  state.  All  of 
these  plans,  though,  single  or  combined,  have  the  pupil,  the  dis- 
trict, or  the  teacher  as  the  unit  upon  which  the  distribution  is 
based.  None  consider  the  tax-payer,  the  tax-rate,  or  the  efforts 
which  a  community  makes  to  help  itself.  In  almost  every  state 
there  are  certain  communities  which,  after  making  every  effort 
to  help  themselves  which  the  law  permits,  will  still  be  unable  to 
meet  the  minim-urn  requirements  which  the  law  does  or  ought  to 
impose.  The  people  who  form  these  communities  may  be  en- 
gaged in  a  calling  which  makes  living  in  a  sparsely  settled  region 
necessary;  they  may  happen  to  live  in  regions  where  the  geolog- 
ical or  the  geographical  conditions  preclude  the  possibility  of  a 
high  property  valuation;  or  they  may  be  improvident.  What- 
ever the  reason  or  the  condition,  though,  their  children  need  an 
education  which  will  cost  all  or  more  than  their  parents,  with  the 
usual  state  apportionment  to  aid  them,  will  be  able  to  provide. 
The  state  must  always  choose  between  waiting  for  such  commu- 
nities to  become  richer  before  making  any  increase  in  the  gen- 
eral state  requirements,  or  it  must  proceed  without  reference  to 
what  such  communities  may  be  able  to  provide.  To  do  the  for- 
mer is  not  wisdom,  though  it  is  the  common  practice;  to  do  the 
latter  involves  additional  responsibilities,  but  these  should  be 
accepted  by  the  state.  To  meet  these  responsibilities  properly 
requires  that  the  state  grant  special  subsidies  to  those  communi- 
ties which  have  exhausted  the  power  of  helping  themselves  fur- 
ther, and  to  do  this  the  state  should  set  aside  a  sum  for  this 
particular  purpose. 


Distribution  on  Effort  and  Need  219 

In  a  distribution  of  school  money  on  the  basis  of  need  and 
effort  certain  principles  seem  to  hold  good : 

In  the  first  place,  it  should  be  clearly  understood  that  the  pur- 
pose is  not  to  equalize  taxes  for  education  throughput  the  state, 
but  only  to  equalize  them  down  to  a  determined  maximum  rate. 
Just  as  the  state  has  certain  minimum  educational  requirements 
which  it  demands  that  all  communities  shall  meet,  so  it  ought  to 
have  certain  maximum  tax-rates  for  education  beyond  which  it 
should  not  compel  communities  to  go  to  meet  these  minimum 
demands.  After  these  minimum  requirements  have  been  met, 
with  or  without  extra  state  aid,  it  is  an  entirely  different  matter 
if  a  community  desires  to  exceed  this  maximum  tax-rate  in  pro- 
viding additional  advantages  for  its  children. 

In  the  second  place,  whatever  aid  is  granted  to  equalize  bur- 
dens should  be  granted  only  on  formal  application,  accompanied 
by  definite  information  as  to  conditions,  local  tax-rate  levied  and 
amount  collected,  salary  paid  the  teacher,  and  the  incidental  ex- 
penses of  the  school,  and  only  after  assurances  have  been  given 
that  certain  general  requirements  of  the  state  have  been  or  will 
be  met.  The  power  to  grant  the  request  ought  to  be  centralized 
in  some  small  but  responsible  educational  body,  and  the  granting 
or  the  refusal  of  such  request  o'ught  to  be  within  their  discretion. 
The  State  Board  of  Education,  in  states  where  this  body  exists, 
would  probably  be  the  proper  body  to  deal  with  this  question, 
acting  on  the  recommendation  and  advice  of  the  Superintendent 
of  Public  Instruction.  It  ought  also  to  be  within  the  discretion 
of  such  a  body  to  grant  aid  to  certain  other  schools  which  are  not 
technically  within  the  class  for  which  this  special  aid  is  intended, 
but  which,  due  to  some  peculiar  situation  or  circumstance,  stand 
for  the  time  in  particular  need  of  special  additional  aid.  The 
New  Hampshire  provision  is  especially  meritorious  in  this  respect. 

In  the  third  place,  such  grants  should  bear  some  direct  rela- 
tion to  the  educational  efforts  made  by  a  community,  as  well  as 
to  its  valuation  or  its  tax-rate.  As  what  a  tax  of  four  mills  will 
produce  per  school  maintained  is  determined  by  the  property 
valuation  behind  the  school,  the  requirement  of  a  definite  local 
tax-rate,  as  is  done  in  Connecticut,  includes  both  total  valuation 
and  tax-rate  for  schools.  The  one  item  it  does  not  include  is  the 
relation  of  the  school  tax  to  the  total  tax  for  all  purposes,  which 
is  a  desirable  item  to  include.  In  the  distribution  of  special  aid, 


22O  School  Funds  and  their  Apportionment 

a  distribution  based  on  some  educational  consideration,  as  for 
example  the  average  daily  attendance  basis  used  in  Connecticut, 
is  theoretically  much  more  desirable  than  a  distribution  based 
wholly  on  property  valuation,  as  in  Massachusetts.  The  one 
places  a  premium  on  daily  educational  effort;  the  other  neglects 
educational  effort  entirely,  except  as  it  relates  to  tax  proportions. 

Average  daily  attendance  is  probably  the  best  basis  to  use  for 
this  purpose.  Length  of  term  is  here  a  negligible  item,  because 
the  special  aid  would  be  granted  for  the  purpose  of  bringing  all 
schools  up  to  the  same  length  of  term.  The  teacher  basis  need 
not  be  made  a  part  of  the  grant,  because  it  will  care  for  itself  in 
most  cases,  and,  with  discretionary  power  given  to  the  granting 
body,  aid  could  be  refused  to  small  and  unnecessary  schools. 
Care  ought  to  be  exercised  in  granting  such  special  aid  not  to 
allow  the  grants  to  become  a  premium  on  the  continuance  of 
small  and  unnecessary  schools,  and  hence  a  force  opposed  to  the 
proper  consolidation  of  schools.  The  number  of  very  small 
schools  to  be  aided  would  probably  not  be  large,  as  it  is  the  gen- 
eral policy  to  close  such  schools  where  possible.  Wisconsin,40 
for  example,  employed  10,259  teachers  in  1903-04  in  the  counties 
of  the  state,  exclusive  of  the  cities  under  city  superintendents, 
but  reports  but  34  schools  (0.3  of  i%)  as  enrolling  five  or  less 
pupils,  and  but  234  schools  (2.3%)  as  enrolling  more  than  five 
and  less  than  eleven  pupils.  Missouri 41  in  1903-04  reported 
9,380  rural  districts,  but  only  282  of  these  (3%)  enrolled  less 
than  fifteen  pupils. 

In  the  fourth  place,  all  such  grants  ought  to  be  regarded  as 
temporary  assistance  until  such  needy  communities  can  become 
able  to  properly  maintain  their  own  schools,  and  in  proportion 
as  this  comes  to  be  the  case  the  aid  should  be  gradually  de- 
creased and  finally  withdrawn.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  the  oppo- 
site condition  happens,  then  the  aid  should  be  increased  in  pro- 
portion. In  this  respect  the  Connecticut  plan  is  excellent,  as  the 
aid  given  automatically  increases  or  decreases  according  to  the 
necessities  of  the  case,  and  whenever  a  town  becomes  able  to 
provide  $25.00  per  pupil  in  average  daily  attendance  at  its  schools 
with  a  four-mill  tax  the  aid  automatically  stops. 

40  nth  Bien.   Rept.   Supt.   Pub.  Instr.,    Wis.,   1903-04,   statistical   tables, 
pp.  99,  104. 

41  An.  Rept.  Supt.  Pub.  Instr.  Mo.,  1904,  pp.  5,  37. 


Distribution  on  Effort  and  Need  221 

In  the  fifth  place,  the  graded  district  quota  combined  with  the 
teachers'  quota,  as  used  in  New  York  state,  seems  capable  of 
even  wider  application.  It  is  intended  here  primarily  to  aid  the 
one-teacher  country  school,  but  it  could  be  graded  still  further 
so  as  to  include  a  second,  a  third,  or  a  fourth  teacher,  and  thus 
be  made  to  encourage  the  building-up  of  small  graded  country 
and  village  schools.  The  district  quota  might  be  abandoned  en- 
tirely and  a  graded  teachers'  quota  substituted  which  would  in- 
volve a  high  grant  to  a  one-teacher  school  (say  $150)  ;  a  dupli- 
cation of  this  grant  for  the  second  teacher,  the  idea  being  to  en- 
courage a  large  country  school  to  add  a  second  teacher  instead 
of  dividing  the  districts;  a  slightly  smaller  grant  (say  $140)  for 
a  third  teacher;  a  still  smaller  grant  (say  $120)  for  a  fourth 
teacher;  and  then  a  uniform  grant  (say  $100)  for  every  teacher 
added  after  the  fourth.  This  could  be  made  uniform  through- 
out the  state,  and  apply  to  the  largest  city  as  well  as  the  smallest 
district;  or,  if  desired,  districts  or  cities  of  over  a  certain  valua- 
tion could  be  deprived  of  the  extra  aid  for  the  first  four  teachers 
and  be  given  a  uniform  grant  for  every  teacher  employed.  The 
details  of  such  a  plan  are  capable  of  many  variations,  but  the 
principle  involved  is  one  of  general  applicability.  In  view  of  the 
general  principle  that  the  wealth  behind  each  school  maintained 
tends  to  increase  with  the  size  and  total  wealth  of  a  community, 
such  a  graded  series  of  teachers'  quotas  would  seem  to  be  in  the 
direction  of  equalization,  and  it  would  also  tend  to  place  a  pre- 
mium on  the  building-up  of  graded  schools. 

In  the  sixth  place,  if  a  state  has  but  a  small  fund  at  its  dis- 
posal, as  in  the  case  of  Massachusetts,  it  would  give  much  better 
results  to  use  it,  or  such  part  of  it  as  may  be  necessary,  in  an 
effort  to  equalize  the  burdens  and  the  advantages  than  to  make 
a  uniform  per  capita  distribution  without  reference  to  educa- 
tional needs  or  burdens  borne,  as  is  now  so  commonly  done. 
This  may  be  illustrated  by  three  states : 

The  state  fund  of  Iowa  42  (29  cents  per  capita  on  census  in 
1903),  the  state  fund  of  Kansas  43  (82  cents  per  capita  on  census 
in  1904),  and  the  state  fund  of  Oregon44  ($1.68  per  capita  on 

42  Annual  interest  on  permanent  fund,  $214,125;  census,  728,810.    Bien. 
Rept.  Supt.  Pub.  Instr.,  Iowa,  1903,  p.  xii. 

43  I4th  Bicn.  Rept.  Supt.  Pub.  Instr.,  Kansas,  1904,  p.  87. 

44  See  footnote  39  in  this  Chapter. 


I 


222  School  Funds  and  their  Apportionment 

census  in  1904),  three  states  in  which  no  state  school  tax  is 
levied  to  supplement  the  income  from  the  state  fund,  could  be 
very  much  better  used  than  by  distributing  it  equally  to  all  on 
the  census  basis,  as  is  at  present  done  in  each  state.  The  larger 
communities,  which  in  general  need  assistance  least,  now  receive 
the  most,  while  the  small  country  schools,  which  need  assistance 
most,  now  receive  but  a  pittance.  A  school  with  a  school  census 
of  25  received  but  $7.25  in  Iowa,  but  $20.50  in  Kansas,  and  but 
$42.00  in  Oregon;  while  a  city  would  have  received,  for  each 
grade  of  fifty  children  enrolled,  about  $25.00  in  Iowa,  about 
$72.00  in  Kansas,  and  about  $135.00  in  Oregon. 

In  Iowa  it  would  give  very  much  better  results  if  the  en- 
tire state  fund  were  set  aside  for  the  purpose  of  aiding  those 
communities  having  the  highest  tax-rate,  with  a  view  to  increas- 
ing the  minimum  term  of  school  from  six  to  seven  months. 

In  Kansas  a  plan  which  would  give  much  better  results  would 
be  to  first  apportion  $25.00  equally  to  all  districts,  towns,  and 
cities  for  every  teacher  employed,  and  then  use  the  remainder 
(about  $110,000)  in  helping  those  communities  whose  local  tax- 
rate  for  schools  exceeded  the  average  for  the  state  (11.87  mills 
for  1903-04), 45  giving  the  help  in  some  proportion  to  the  rate 
of  excess.  The  average  school  tax-rate  of  16  Kansas  counties, 
for  example,  was  over  14  mills,  and  in  6  counties  it  was  over  16 
mills.  The  variations  within  the  counties  would,  of  course,  be 
much  greater  than  the  variations  in  county  averages.  What  some 
districts  could  do  on  three  or  four  mills  other  districts  could 
not  do  on  less  than  nineteen  or  twenty  mills.  Such  extremes 
ought  to  be  in  part  equalized,  if  such  extremes  are  necessary  to 
meet  the  requirements  of  the  state. 

In  Oregon  a  good  plan  would  be  to  first  make  an  apportion- 
ment, of  $50.00  to  all  districts,  towns,  and  cities  for  every  teacher 
employed 46  (3,914  in  1903,  on  which  the  1904  apportionment 
of  the  state  fund  would  be  based),  as  was  proposed  above  for 
Kansas,  and  then  use  the  remainder  ($45,534.48  of  the  1904  ap- 
portionment) in  helping  those  communities  whose  local  tax-rate, 
to  meet  the  demands  set  by  the  state,  exceeded  a  certain  deter- 
mined sum.  The  "  teacher-quota "  apportionment  would  of 

45  1 4th  Bien.  Re  pi.  Supt.  Pub.  Instr.,  Kansas,  1904,  pp.  62-64. 

46  i6th  Bien.  Rept.  Supt.  Publ.  Instr. ,  Oregon,  1905,  p.  26. 


Distribution  on  Effort  and  Need  223 

course  go  equally  to  all  counties  and  districts,  but  the  remainder, 
or  the  reserve  fund,  would  be  distributed  unequally,  the  poorer 
the  county  the  larger  the  amount  it  would  receive.  By  appor- 
tioning the  state  school  fund  in  this  manner  instead  of  on  school 
census,  Oregon  could  probably  provide,  as  was  suggested  on  an- 
other page  earlier  in  this  chapter,  for  a  uniform  minimum  school 
term  of  seven  months  throughout  the  state. 

In  states  where  the  amount  to  be  distributed  is  large,  as  in 
Indiana  ($2.90  per  capita  on  census  in  1904),  Utah  ($4.00  per 
capita  on  census  in  1902),  Texas  ($5.00  per  capita  on  census  in 
1903),  and  Montana  ($9.85  per  capita  on  census  in  1902),  great 
advantages  would  accrue  from  a  reservation  of  from  5%  to  10% 
of  the  apportionment  for  use  in  equalizing  burdens,  increasing 
length  of  term,  and  as  subsidies  for  additional  advantages.  The 
method  has  such  wide  application  that  the  future  ought  to  see  its 
gradual  and  somewhat  general  adoption. 


CHAPTER  XIV 
EQUALIZING  THE  ADVANTAGES  OF  SECONDARY  EDUCATION 

IN  the  consideration  of  the  various  bases  for  the  apportion- 
ment of  funds  we  have  so  far  made  no  specific  mention  of  the 
various  attempts  which  have  been  made  in  recent  years  to  equal- 
ize the  advantages  of  secondary  education.  We  have  omitted  this 
phase  of  the  problem  of  equalization  until  now,  partly  because  so 
few  states  separate  secondary  schools  from  "  common  schools  " 
either  in  statistical  reports  or  in  the  apportionment  of  school 
funds,  and  partly  because  we  preferred  to  deal  with  this  phase 
of  the  problem  of  equalizing  educational  advantages  in  a  sep- 
arate chapter. 

Secondary  education  is,  comparatively,  so  recent  an  undertak- 
ing that  many  states  have  as  yet  made  no  very  definite  pro- 
vision for  this  class  of  schools.  Such  provision  as  has  been 
made  by  the  different  states  extends  from  mere  permission  to 
communities  to  form  such  schools  and  tax  themselves  to  pay  for 
them,  as  in  South  Dakota,  which  is  analogous  to  the  first  legis- 
lative permission  to  the  people  of  a  community  to  organize  a 
taxing  district  and  tax  every  one  to  maintain  an  elementary 
school;  to  a  general  state  tax  for  secondary  schools,  as  in  Cali- 
fornia, levied  on  all  property  in  the  state,  and  apportioned  to  all 
secondary  schools  in  the  state  which  comply  with  certain  require- 
ments ;  or  to  the  New  Jersey  plan,  where  secondary  education  is 
regarded  as  an  integral  part  of  the  state  system  of  public  schools 
and  is  provided  for  accordingly  in  the  regular  apportionment. 
Between  these  extremes  there  are  many  intermediate  plans  for 
the  granting  of  some  degree  of  aid  to  such  schools. 

The  expense  of  maintaining  schools  of  secondary  grade  is  so 
much  greater  than  that  for  elementary  schools,1  due  to  better 

1  The  cost  for  secondary  education  is  probably  two  to  four  times  that 
for  elementary  education,  though  the  ordinary  school  report  gives  little 
data  from  which  a  satisfactory  determination  of  the  relative  amounts 
can  be  obtained.  The  somewhat  extended  investigations  of  Mr.  Strayer 

(224) 


Equalizing  Advantages  of  Secondary  Education         225 

trained  and  more  expensive  teachers,  smaller  classes,  the  smaller 
number  enrolled,  and  more  expensive  teaching  equipment,  and 
these  schools  have  come  to  form  such  an  important  part  of  the  edu- 
cational system  of  a  community  that  the  future  is  certain  to  witness 
a  strong  demand  that  these  schools  be  adopted  by  the  state  as  a 
part  of  the  general  educational  system.  This  demand  will  prob- 
ably be  somewhat  accentuated  as  time  goes  by  by  the  fact  that 
the  cost  for  elementary  education  is  also  increasing,  and  that  the 
money  now  at  hand  and  originally  intended  for  the  support  of 
elementary  schools  2  will  in  many  cases  prove  insufficient  for 
both  classes  of  schools.  Many  communities  are  to-day  trying  to 
maintain  a  full  twelve  years'  school  system  on  funds  about  suffi- 
cient to  properly  maintain  the  elementary  schools.  The  matter 
has  already  been  brought  to  the  front  in  a  number  of  states  and 
a  number  of  plans  for  extending  aid  have  already  been  devised. 
The  plan  of  giving  no  recognition  whatever  to  high  schools  in 
making  apportionments,  now  followed  by  a  number  of  states 
using  the  census  basis,  is  defensible  only  on  the  theory  that  such 
schools  are  a  luxury,  and  hence  should  be  supported  wholly  by 
such  communities  as  choose  to  maintain  them.  If  this  theory  is 
to  prevail,  then  all  money  now  apportioned  ought  to  be  limited 
strictly  for  the  support  of  primary  and  grammar  schools.  This 
theory,  though,  while  still  held  by  many  people,  particularly  of 
the  older  generation,  is  not  one  which  is  likely  to  gain  ground 
with  time.  With  the  gradual  change  in  conception  as  to  the 
purpose  of  these  high  schools  from  that  of  a  mere  preparatory 
school  for  the  universities  to  that  of  a  "  people's  college,"  with 
the  increasing  necessity  for  broader  education  to  meet  the 
changed  conditions  of  life,  and  with  the  introduction  of  the 
newer  studies  and  methods  of  instruction,  these  schools  have  re- 
cently experienced  a  very  marked  gain  in  popular  favor.  This 

(See  Teachers  College  Record  for  May,  1905)  seem  to  show  that  the  real 
cost  of  good  secondary  schools  is  three  to  four  times  that  for  elementary 
schools. 

2  The  fact  that  the  somewhat  general  provision  of  secondary  schools 
is  comparatively  recent,  that  the  right  to  provide  for  such  schools  by  gen- 
eral taxation  was  contested  in  the  courts  in  a  number  of  the  states,  and 
the  somewhat  common  constitutional  provision  that  the  income  from 
the  school  fund  shall  be  used  for  "  common  schools  "  or  to  help  "  main- 
tain a  free  public  school  in  every  school  district  in  the  state,"  may  be 
taken  as  evidence  as  to  the  original  purpose  of  the  state  school  funds. 


226  School  Funds  and  their  Apportionment 

change  in  attitude  toward  these  schools  is  certain  to  add  force  to 
the  movement  in  favor  of  some  form  of  general  recognition  for 
secondary  as  well  as  elementary  education.  The  maintenance 
of  elementary  schools  and  a  state  university  and  the  refusal  to 
help  to  maintain  high  schools  is  hardly  a  logical  position  for  a 
state  to  take. 

Mere  permission  to  cities,  towns,  and  districts  to  form  a  high 
school  and  tax  themselves  to  pay  for  it  must  be  regarded  as  the 
first  step  in  the  process  of  the  evolution  of  a  system  of  general 
aid  for  secondary  education.  South  Dakota  3  and  Indiana  4  at 
present  represent  this  stage  in  the  evolutionary  process.  The 
next  step  is  where  the  local-support  principle  is  still  retained, 
but  the  taxing  area  is  extended  to  a  larger  field,  as  to  the  county 
as  a  whole.  In  states  where  this  step  has  been  taken,  as  in 
Oregon,5  and  in  Iowa,6  we  find  the  county  high  school.  Cali- 
fornia belonged  to  this  class  previous  to  1903.  The  common 
features  of  these  permissive  county  high  school  laws  is  the  neces- 
sity for  a  petition  signed  by  a  certain  percentage  of  the  electors, 
asking  for  the  submission  of  the  question  of  the  formation  of  a 
high  school  to  a  vote,  an  election,  the  appointment  of  trustees, 
an  annual  county  high  school  tax  for  support,  free  tuition  to  resi- 
dents of  the  county,  and  provisions  for  the  dissolution  of  the 
school  by  a  popular  vote  after  a  certain  period  of  time,  if  so 
desired.  The  next  step  is  taken  when  the  state  begins  a  series  of 
grants  or  subsidies  to  aid  certain  classes  of  secondary  schools,  as 
is  the  case  in  Minnesota,  North  Dakota,  and  Pennsylvania.  The 
next  step  consists  in  the  levying  of  a  state  tax  for  secondary 
schools,  which  is  distributed  to  those  schools  complying  with  the 

3  In   South  Dakota,   a  petition   and  an  election  are  necessary  to  form 
a  high  school  district,  and  after  formation  an  annual  local  tax  of  not  over 
twenty  mills  is  permitted.     "An  Act  to  provide  for  the  establishment  of 
township  high  schools,"  Approved  March  9,  1903.    S.  B.  No.  167. 

4  In  Indiana,  the  Township  Trustee  "  may  establish  a  high  school  of  his 
own  motion,  if  he  has  in  the  township  twenty-five  graduates  of  high  school 
age.     No  petition  is  necessary  for  its  establishment"     School  Law  De- 
cisions ;  Jones,  Supt.  School  Law  of  Ind.,  1903,  p.  127.    The  school  is  paid 
for  out  of  the  general  tuition  revenues  of  the  township. 

5  School  Laws  of  Oregon,  Title  II,  Arts.  1-3 ;  as  printed  in  accordance 
with  Senate  Joint  Res.  No.  6,  1903. 

6  Code  of  Iowa,  Sees.  2728-2733,  as  amended  to  1902.    School  Laws  of 
Iowa,  1902,  pp.  118-122. 


Equalizing  Advantages  of  Secondary  Education         227 

law,  as  is  done  in  California.  The  final  step  is  the  complete  ab- 
sorption of  these  schools  into  the  general  state  system  of  public 
education,  as  has  been  done  in  New  York  and  New  Jersey. 

The  plan  of  giving  no  state  recognition  whatever  to  high 
schools,  as  we  pointed  out  in  Chapter  IX,  is  a  natural  accom- 
paniment of  the  use  of  the  census  basis  for  the  apportionment  of 
school  funds.  As  a  practical  condition  it  may  be  partly  defen- 
sible on  the  ground  that  the  cities  receive  more  than  their  share 
under  the  census  basis  and  have  a  much  greater  per  capita  wealth, 
and  hence  should  be  required  to  maintain  their  high  schools  un- 
aided. This  may  possibly  give  somewhat  equitable  results  with 
respect  to  the  larger  cities,  but  it  will  not  give  equitable  results 
when  applied  to  the  small  cities,  towns,  townships,  and  rural 
unions  which  maintain  such  schools.  Under  the  Indiana  or  the 
Ohio  plans  of  local  support,  a  high  school  is  a  direct  charge  on 
the  city,  town,  or  township  establishing  and  maintaining  it,  and 
under  the  six  to  twenty-one  years  of  age  census  basis  of  appor- 
tionment, in  use  in  both  states,  a  town  or  township  which  does 
not  establish  a  high  school  receives  the  same  advantages  in  the 
apportionment  of  state  funds  as  one  which  does  establish  and 
maintain  such  a  school.  The  state  premium  is  thus  opposed  to 
their  establishment  rather  than  favorable  to  it.  The  558  town- 
ships in  Indiana  which  maintained  some  form  of  a  high  school 7 
in  1904,  out  of  a  total  of  1,016  townships  in  the  state,  stood  on 
exactly  the  same  basis  as  far  as  the  apportionment  of  funds  was 
concerned  as  the  458  townships  which  did  not  maintain  a  high 
school.  While  it  is  certainly  proper  that  a  township  should 
choose  to  pay  the  tuition  of  its  pupils  in  some  neighboring  school 
rather  than  maintain  a  high  school  for  five  or  six  pupils,  it  is 
hardly  just  that  it  should  receive  the  same  apportionment  from 
the  state  as  the  township  making  the  greater  effort.  So  long  as 
the  census  basis  of  apportionment  is  retained  there  is  no  general 
means  of  aiding  high  schools  except  by  special  grants  or  by  the 
levying  of  a  special  high  school  tax.  This  reveals  another  of  the 
undesirable  features  of  the  census  basis  of  apportionment. 

The  plan  of  making  special  state  grants  or  subsidies  to  high 
schools  marks  the  beginning  of  state  aid  to  secondary  education. 
It  has  been  tried  by  a  number  of  different  states  and  has  gener- 

7  22nd  Bien.  Kept.  Supt.  Pub.  Instr.,  Ind.,  1904,  p.  686.  Only  20  of  these 
township  high  schools  were  regular  "  commissioned  high  schools." 


228  School  Funds  and  their  Apportionment 

ally  resulted,  as  any  form  of  aid  would  have  done,  in  producing" 
a  rapid  development  of  such  schools.  The  State  of  Washing- 
ton,8 for  example,  has  granted  a  subsidy  of  $100  per  year  for 
each  grade  taught  above  the  grammar  grades,  provided  that  the 
grade  shall  not  consist  of  less  than  four  pupils  who  have  finished 
the  grammar  grade  work,  and  shall  have  an  average  daily  attend- 
ance of  not  less  than  three  pupils.  Minnesota  has  provided  for 
a  grant  of  $1,000  to  each  high  school  which  meets  certain  uni- 
form requirements.  North  Dakota  9  has  provided  for  a  grant  of 
$400  to  every  high  school  maintaining  a  four  years'  course,  $300 
to  every  high  school  maintaining  a  three  years'  course,  and  $200 
to  every  high  school  maintaining  a  two  years'  course.  Pennsyl- 
vania 10  has  exactly  doubled  the  North  Dakota  grants.  Rhode 
Island  J1  has  provided  for  a  state  grant  to  each  town  of  $20  for 
each  pupil  in  average  attendance  for  the  first  twenty-five  pupils, 
and  $10  for  each  pupil  in  average  attendance  for  the  second 
twenty-five  pupils.  This  last  is  intended  to  aid  only  the  poorer 
towns,  as  the  maximum  grant  is  $750. 

To  pay  these  grants  a  definite  legislative  appropriation  is  made : 
$115,000  in  Minnesota  in  1901 ;  $10,000  in  North  Dakota  in  1899 
and  annually;  and  $25,000  in  Pennsylvania  in  1901.  In  the  case 
of  North  Dakota  the  amount  of  the  grant  has  been  fixed  by 
statute,12  and  that,  of  course,  permits  of  no  increase  with  the 
development  of  high  schools  and  the  growth  of  the  state.  In 
Minnesota  and  Pennsylvania  the  amount  is  fixed  by  appropria- 
tions, and  this  involves  bringing  the  matter  before  the  legislature 
at  each  session.  This  method  has  many  disadvantages.  If,  as 
is  very  likely  to  happen,  the  state  appropriation  is  not  large 
enough  to  meet  all  requests,  then  the  grants  must  be  scaled  down 
proportionately  for  all  schools.  This  is  what  actually  happens. 
In  Minnesota,  for  example,  the  grants  actually  paid  for  1901 
amounted  to  but  $850  per  school,  and  for  1902  to  but  $7/0  per 

8  Wash.  Code  of  Pub.  Instr.,  Title  I,   Ch.  4,   Sec   10,  as   amended  by 
Wash.  Ses.  Laws  of  1903,  Sec  3,  p.  161. 
9N.  Dak.  Code  of  1899,  Art.  6,  Sec.  870. 

10  Act  of  June  28,  1895,  Sec.  4.  Pub.  Laws  of  Pa.,  p.  414. 

11  "An   Act   to   secure   a    more   uniform    high   standard    in   the   public 
schools  of  this  State,"  Approved  May  4th,  1898.     General  Laws  of  R.  I., 
Ch.   544,   Sec.  3. 

12  The  General  School  Laivs  of  N.   Dak.,  as  amended  to    1903.     Poli. 
Code,  Ch.  9,  Art.  23,  Sec.  870,  div.  2. 


Equalising  Advantages  of  Secondary  Education         229 

school.13  In  Pennsylvania,  also,  the  grants  paid  during  1902-03 
were :  to  four-year  schools  only  $328,  to  three-year  schools  $246, 
and  to  two-year  schools  $164  each.14  This  gives  an  uncertainty 
as  to  the  value  of  these  subsidies  and  makes  this  method  less  de- 
sirable than  other  plans  that  can  be  devised. 

The  subsidy  method  is  further  defective  in  that  it  places  a 
premium  only  on  the  maintenance  of  a  school  with  a  certain 
number  of  years  of  instruction,  but  places  no  premium  on  the 
employment  of  a  sufficient  number  of  teachers  to  properly  teach 
the  courses  of  instruction  which  are  or  which  ought  to  be  offered. 
In  reality  the  state  places  a  premium  on  the  opposite  tendency. 
A  community  by  working  its  teachers  harder,  and  thus  being 
able  to  offer  another  year  of  instruction,  may  be  able  to  earn  a 
larger  state  grant,  but  the  effort  to  earn  it  may  have  been  made 
at  the  expense  of  the  quality  of  the  instruction  given.  If  it  is 
worth  while  for  the  state  to  aid  secondary  education  at  all,  then 
the  state  ought  to  so  apportion  its  aid  as  to  place  a  premium  on 
the  giving  of  instruction  under  good  educational  conditions. 

Under  the  grant  or  subsidy  method,  as  usually  employed,  there 
is,  still  further,  no  incentive  whatever  to  a  high  school  to  add 
more  teachers  and  broaden  the  ranm  of  instruction  offered.  A 
high  school  having  two  teachers  and  a  single  four  years'  course 
of  instruction,  is  given  no  incentive  to  add  a  third  teacher  in 
order  to  improve  the  quality  of  the  instruction  given  or  to  in- 
crease the  number  of  subjects  taught.  Such  a  school,  with  only 
a  single  "classical  course,"  stands  exactly  on  the  same  footing 
as  another  school  which  employs  four  teachers  and  offers  a  good 
scientific  course  of  instruction  as  well.  The  second  school  will 
cost  more  to  maintain,  and  there  is  every  probability  that  it  will 
attract  more  students  and  do  a  greater  educational  service,  but 
under  the  lump  subsidy  plan  of  aid  its  reward  will  be  the  same  as 
that  of  the  first  school.  The  position  of  the  state  as  to  the  im- 
provement of  existing  conditions  is  thus  a  purely  negative  one. 
No  premium  is  placed  on  growth  or  better  instruction  by  such 
uniform  subsidies.  If  the  subsidy  plan  is  to  be  used  at  all,  the 
subsidies  ought  to  be  graded  both  as  to  years  and  character  of 
the  instruction  offered,  and  the  power  to  grant,  scale  down,  or 
withhold  them  ought  to  be  centralized  in  some  responsible  edu- 
cational body. 

13  I2th  Bien.  Kept.  Supt.  Pub.  Instr.,  Minn.,  1901-02,  p.  28. 

14  An.  Kept.  Supt.  Pub.  Instr.,  Pa.,  1903,  p.  14. 


230  School  Funds  and  their  Apportionment 

On  the  other  hand,  the  graded  nature  of  the  Washington, 
North  Dakota,  and  Pennsylvania  grants  is  meritorious,  in  that  a 
premium  is  thus  given  for  the  formation  of  many  partial  course 
schools  in  communities  which  would  be  unable  to  provide  a  full 
four  years'  high  school  course.  It  is  decidedly  to  the  advantage 
of  small  communities  to  have  some  of  the  higher  advantages  of 
education,  even  though  they  may  not  be  able  to  provide  the  full 
course  of  instruction  or  as  large  a  range  of  instruction  as  is  pro- 
vided in  the  larger  schools.  Any  good  instruction  beyond  that 
of  the  grammar  school  subjects,  even  though  taught  to  but  a  few 
pupils,  is  a  stimulating  influence  which  reacts  most  favorably  on 
all  lower  instruction.  These  two-year  schools  usually  form  the 
nucleus  of  future  four-year  schools,  and  communities  are  usually 
able  to  provide  this  amount  of  instruction  years  before  they  would 
be  able  to  provide  a  fully  equipped  four-year  high  school. 

In  1885  the  State  of  California  had  but  twelve  high  schools, 
and  in  1890  but  twenty-four.15  In  1891  the  legislature  passed 
a  law  16  permitting  of  the  formation  of  union-district  and  county 
high  schools,  and  by  1900  the  number  of  schools  had  increased 
to  one  hundred  and  twenty.  The  burden  of  maintaining  these 
schools  being  in  many  casesjpccessive,  and  it  not  being  allowable 
to  use  any  portion  of  the  state  school  fund  for  their  support,  the 
question  of  state  aid  for  high  schools  began  to  be  agitated.  It 
was  contended  that  these  schools  were  of  benefit  to  the  state  as 
a  whole,  and  that  communities  ought  not  to  be  asked  to  do  alone, 
and  often  at  a  heavy  cost,  what  was,  in  part  at  least,  for  the 
common  good  of  all. 

In  1901  the  California  legislature  provided  for  the  submission 
of  a  constitutional  amendment 17  to  the  voters  of  the  state,  the 
purpose  of  which  was  definitely  to  incorporate  high  schools  and 
technical  schools  into  the  state  school  system  and  to  permit  of 
the  levying  of  a  general  state  high  school  tax.  This  amendment 
was  adopted  by  the  voters  at  the  election  of  1902  by  a  large 
majority.  The  largest  city  in  the  state,  which  from  a  purely 
financial  and  selfish  point  of  view  had  least  to  gain  and  most  to 
lose,  gave  a  good  majority  in  favor  of  its  adoption. 

15  2ist  Bien.  Kept.  Supt*Pub.  Instr.,  Cal,  1903-04,  p.  124. 

16  Polit.  Code  of  Cal.,  Sec.   1670.    This  law  has  'been  amended  at  al- 
most every  session  of  the  legislature  since  its  original  passage. 

17  Constitution  of  Cal,  Art.  IX,  Sec.  6,  as  amended  Nov.  4,  1902. 


Equalizing  Advantages  of  Secondary  Education         231 

Accordingly,  the  legislature  of  1903  provided 18  for  a  state 
one  and  one-half  mill  annual  high  school  tax,  the  income  to  be 
distributed  to  all  legally  organized  high  schools  in  the  state,  pro- 
vided such  schools  maintained  a  four  years'  course  leading  to 
admission  to  one  of  the  courses  in  the  state  university,19  em- 
ployed at  least  two  teachers,  was  maintained  for  nine  months  each 
year,  had  an  average  daily  attendance  of  at  least  twenty  pupils, 
and  had  "  a  reasonably  good  equipment  of  building,  laboratory, 
and  library."  The  result  has  been  a  very  rapid  development  of 
these  schools,  those  already  established  increasing  their  teachers 
and  instruction,  and  many  new  ones  being  established,  the  num- 
ber reaching  one  hundred  and  sixty-seven  in  1904. 

In  1905  this  law  was  amended  to  provide  that  in  the  future  no 
state-aided  high  school  shall  charge  any  pupil  residing  outside  of 
the  high  school  district  a  higher  tuition  fee  than  "  the  difference 
between  the  cost  per  pupil  for  maintenance  of  such  school  and  the 
amount  per  pupil  received  during  that  school  year  by  such  high 
school  from  the  state."  20  Also,  after  July  I,  1905,  the  amount 
of  state  high  school  tax  to  be  levied  is  to  be  determined  by  cal- 
culating "$15  per  pupil  in  average  daily  attendance  in  all  the 
duly  established  high  schools  of  th£  state  for  the  last  preceding 
school  year."  21  The  fund  is  distributed,  one-third  equally  to  all 
schools,  "  irrespective  of  number  of  pupils  enrolled  or  the  aver- 
age daily  attendance  therein,"  and  the  remaining  two-thirds 
"  pro-rata  upon  the  basis  of  average  daily  attendance  *  *  for 
the  last  preceding  school  year."  22  The  value  of  this  apportion- 
ment 28  for  1904  was  $544.93  to  every  school  on  the  one-third 
basis,  and  about  $11.18  per  pupil  in  average  daily  attendance  on 
the  attendance  basis.24 

18  "An  Act  creating  a  fund  for  the  benefit  and  support  of  high  schools 
and  providing  for  its  distribution,"  Approved  March  2,  1903. 

19  As  required  by  the  law  relating  to  the  establishment  of  high  schools 
Polit.  Code  of  Col,,  Sec.   1670,  div.  12. 

20  Senate  Bill  No.  266,  Session  of  1905,  Sec.  9. 
"/&«*.,  Sec.  i. 

22  Ibid.,  Sec.  5- 

28  2ist  Bien.  Rept.  Supt.  Pub.  Instr.,  Col.,  1^03-04,  p.  215. 

24  This  is  not  essentially  different  from  the  apportionment  values  for  ele- 
mentary schools,  which  are  $550  for  each  teacher  employed,  (see  footnote 
22,  Oh.  XII),  and  a  state  average  value  of  $11.52.  (This  is  two-thirds 


232  School  Funds  and  their  Apportionment 

The  California  plan  for  granting  state  aid  to  high  schools  is 
especially  meritorious  in  a  number  of  particulars.  In  the  first 
place,  the  money  originally  set  apart  for  the  support  of  elemen- 
tary schools  was  not  taken  and  spread  over  a  greater  field,25  but 
an  additional  fund  was  created.  The  granting  of  state  aid  to 
high  schools  thus  benefited  the  elementary  schools  financially  as 
well  as  educationally.  In  the  second  place  this  additional  fund  is 
not  a  legislative  appropriation  which  depends  upon  the  good  will 
of  each  succeeding  legislature,  and  which  may  or  may  not  be 
sufficient  to  pay  the  grants  promised  by  law,  but  it  is  a  definite  and 
automatically  increasing  tax,  the  amount  levied  to  be  determined 
by  the  actual  work  done  by  the  schools.  In  the  third  place,  limit- 
ing of  tuition  fees  to  outside  children  to  the  actual  cost  of  instruc- 
tion, and  then  deducting  the  value  of  the  state  apportionment,  is 
also  wise.  High  schools  in  California  are  maintained  by  cities, 
towns,  districts,  unions  of  districts,  and  by  counties  as  a  whole. 
All  of  the  territory  of  some  counties  is  included  in  high  school 
districts,  thus  providing  free  tuition  to  all  children  in  such  coun- 
ties. In  other  counties  only  a  portion  of  the  county  is  included 
in  a  high  school  district  or  districts,  and  hence  some  children 
must  pay  tuition  charges.  One  of  the  next  steps  in  the  evolution 
of  California's  system  of  public  education  will  probably  be  to 
annex  all  non-high  school  territory  to  some  high  school  district 
for  taxing  purposes,  until  such  time  as  the  residents  see  fit  to 
divide  off  and  create  a  high  school  of  their  own,  and  then  declare 
high  school  education  free  and  open  to  all,  as  elementary  educa- 
tion has  been.26  When  this  has  been  done,  California  will  have 
reached  the  logical  conclusion  of  the  process  of  state  aid  for 
education,  and  will  have  provided  a  continuous  system  of  public 

of  the  value  on  average  daily  attendance  ($17.87)  of  the  state  census 
apportionment  of  $9.47.  See  Table  No.  34,  Ch.  IX.)  on  average  daily 
attendance. 

25  On  the  contrary,  the  amended  section  of  the  Constitution  provided 
that  "the  entire  revenue  derived  from  the  State  School  Fund  and  from 
the  general   State  school  tax  shall  be  applied  exclusively  to  the  support 
of  primary  and  grammar  schools,  but  the  Legislature  may  authorize  and 
cause  to  be   levied   a   special   State  school   tax  for  the  support   of  high 
schools   and  technical   schools,  or  either  of  such   schools."     Constitution 
of  Cat.,  Art  IX,  Sec.  6. 

26  See  footnote  2,  Chapter  IX. 


Equalizing  Advantages  of  Secondary  Education         233 

education  extending  from  the  kindergarten  to  and  through  the 
state  university,  and  which  is  absolutely  free  and  equally  open  to 
all  the  children  of  the  state. 

In  the  apportionment  of  the  high  school  fund  the  California 
plan  is  meritorious  in  that  an  equal  lump  sum  is  first  given  to  each 
high  school,  thus  recognizing  the  needs  of  the  smaller  schools,  and 
then  the  balance  is  apportioned  on  the  basis  of  the  number  of 
pupils  actually  in  average  daily  attendance  at  the  schools.  Length 
of  term  (aggregate  days'  attendance)  is  here  a  negligible  factor, 
because  all  higti  schools  are  required  to  maintain  at  least  a  nine 
months'  term  as  one  of  the  prerequisites  to  sharing  in  the  state 
apportionment. 

The  California  plan,  on  the  other  hand,  is  defective  in  that  it 
places  no  premium  whatever  on  the  employment  of  a  sufficient 
number  of  teachers,  or  on  the  addition  of  new  lines  of  instruction. 
If  a  second  fraction  of  the  sum  were  apportioned  to  the  schools 
on  the  basis  of  the  number  of  regular  teachers  employed,  and 
then  the  remainder  apportioned  as  now  on  average  daily  attend- 
ance, it  would  be  an  improvement.  This  would  place  an  em- 
phasis on  the  teacher  employed,  and  hence  on  the  different  lines 
of  instruction  offered,  and  would  decrease  the  pressure  that  will 
from  time  to  time  ,be  exerted  on  a  small  school  to  retain  some 
unworthy  pupils  because  of  the  size  of  the  attendance  grant.  The 
fraction  could  be  calculated  so  that  the  result  would  not  be  very 
.materially  different  from  what  it  is  now,  though  of  course  the 
teacher  basis  would  favor  the  small  school  more  than  the  large  one. 

The  complete  incorporation  of  secondary  education  into  the 
state  system  of  education  is  well  represented  by  New  Jersey,  this 
state  having  reached  the  logical  conclusion  of  the  process  of 
state  aid  to  secondary  schools.  The  State  of  New  York  is  an- 
other example  of  complete  incorporation.  The  School  Law  of 
New  Jersey  repeatedly  uses  the  term  "  public  schools,"  but  only 
indirectly  refers  to  high  schools  as  a  "  public  school  of  higher 
grade."  Yet  the  provision  for  the  support  of  high  schools  is  not 
only  as  complete  as  for  any  other  class  of  schools,  but  is  also 
one  of  the  best  in  use.  The  plan,  which  is  a  combination  of  the 
teacher-employed  and  the  attendance  bases,  is  at  once  simple  and 
satisfactory.  For  every  teacher  employed  in  a  high  school,  in 
common  with  any  other  type  of  school,  the  sum  of  $200  is  first 
set  aside  in  making  the  county  apportionment,  and  for  every 


234  School  Funds  and  their  Apportionment 

teacher  employed  part  time  the  sum  of  $80  is  set  aside;  the  re- 
mainder, after  making  certain  special  appropriations,  is  appor- 
tioned on  the  basis  of  the  total  days'  attendance  in  the  school. 
The  apportionment  to  a  high  school  is  thus  on  the  same  basis  as 
to  a  kindergarten,  a  primary  school,  or  a  grammar  school.  All 
belong  to  the  state  public  school  system,  all  share  alike  in  the 
apportionment,  and  all  are  paid  out  of  a  common  fund. 

The  way  this  works  out  may  be  shown  by  an  example.  For 
1902-03,  42%  of  the  total  state  fund  of  $2,819,541.48  was  appor- 
tioned on  the  total  days'  attendance  basis,  and  the  total  days' 
attendance  in  all  schools  was  41, 540,740^ 7  This  makes  the 
attendance  apportionment  worth  a  little  less  than  three  cents  per 
pupil  per  day.  Let  us  call  it  three  cents.  To  illustrate  we  will 
assume  three  high  schools,  the  first,  A,  a  village  school,  offering 
but  two  years  of  instruction;  the  second,  B,  a  town  high  school, 
offering  four  years  of  instruction  in  a  few  subjects;  and  the  third, 
C,  a  city  high  school  offering  four  years  of  instruction  in  a  num- 
ber of  courses.  The  results  would  then  be : 

School.  Teachers. 

A  iH 

B  3 

C  i6& 

School.  Value  of  apportionment  on  Total  amount 

Teaehers.  Attendance.  received. 

A  $  280  $     96  $   376 

B  600  270  870 

C  3,280  1,950  5,230 

The  value  of  such  a  plan,  if  sufficient  revenue  can  be  pro- 
vided, is  at  once  evident.  High  schools  cease  to  be  a  separate 
class  of  schools  and  become  at  once  an  integral  part  of  a  general 
state  system  of  public  instruction.  The  state  then  rewards  a 
community's  efforts  according  to  the  amount  of  higher  instruc- 
tion provided,  as  measured  by  the  number  of  teachers  employed, 
and  according  to  the  actual  amount  of  work  done  by  the  higher 
grade  of  school,  as  measured  by  the  attendance  upon  the  instruc- 
tion offered.  If  a  rural  union-school  will  provide  instruction  in 
only  the  ninth  grade  work,  and  thus  give  the  boys  and  girls  in 
the  rural  districts  a  taste  of  something  beyond  the  "  common 
school  branches,"  the  state  will  reward  such  an  effort  by  a  grant 
27  An.  Kept.  State  Bd.  of  Educ.  of  N.  J.,  1903,  p.  xxiii. 


Enrollment. 

Av.  Dy.  Att. 

Aggr.  Days'  A  tt. 

24 

18 

3,200 

59 

45 

9,000 

447 

325 

65,000 

Equalising  Advantages  of  Secondary  Education         235 

for  both  the  teacher  employed  and  the  extra  attendance  resulting. 
If  a  village,  such  as  school  A  in  the  above  illustration,  will  em- 
ploy one  additional  teacher  and  another  teacher  for  part  time,  so 
as  to  provide  the  first  two  years  of  high  school  work,  the  state 
will  at  once  reward  such  an  effort.  To  the  large  city  school,  the 
state  offers  a  standing  premium  on  additional  effort.  If  the 
school  will  add  manual  training  or  commercial  instruction,  a 
grant  will  be  made  in  proportion  to  the  number  of  teachers  em- 
ployed and  the  resulting  increase  in  attendance  because  of  the 
new  courses  offered.  The  simplicity,  the  justice,  and  the  auto- 
matic adjustment  of  the  plan  to  needs  and  efforts  are  strong 
points  in  its  favor. 

One  thing  ought  always  to  accompany  any  such  complete  inr 
corporation  of  the  high  schools  into  the  public  school  system,  and 
that  is  a  proportionate  increase  in  the  state  funds  provided  for 
apportionment.  Otherwise  the  plan  only  serves  to  deplete  the 
fund  for  the  maintenance  of  elementary  education.  The  adop- 
tion of  a  plan  in  Wisconsin  ought  to  involve  at  least  the  restora- 
tion of  the  one-mill  state  school  tax,28  though  the  special  legis- 
lative appropriation  for  high  schools  could  then  be  dispensed 
with;  the  adoption  of  the  plan  in  Indiana  ought  to  involve  the 
restoration  of  the  state  school  tax  to  at  least  sixteen  cents.29 
There  is  no  wisdom  in  incorporating  high  schools  into  the  state 
school  system  if  the  elementary  schools  are  to  be  made  to  pay 
the  bills. 

The  ease  with  which  an  incorporation  of  high  schools  into  the 
state  system  can  be  accomplished  by  the  use  of  the  teacher- 
employed  and  the  attendance  bases  of  apportionment  in  combina- 
tion, if  accompanied  by  a  corresponding  increase  in  funds,  will  be 
evident  from  the  illustrations  given.  This  is  impossible  under  the 
census  basis  of  apportionment,  because  all  of  the  high  school 
pupils  have  been  counted  once  for  the  general  census  apportion- 
ment. Under  an  enrollment,  average  membership,  or  attendance 
basis  of  apportionment  some  slight  recognition  would  be  given 
to  any  efforts  made  by  a  community  to  provide  higher  advantages 

28  See   footnote  38,   Chapter  VI. 

29  This  tax  was   16  cents  from  1865  to  1893,  when  the  legislature  re- 
duced it  to  13  cents,  and  the  succeeding  legislature  of  1895  reduced  it  to 
ii    cents,   at   which  figure  it  has   since  remained.     Rawles,   W.   A.    Cen- 
tralising Tendencies  in  the  Administration  of  Indiana,  p.  73. 


236  School  Funds  and  their  Apportionment 

for  its  children,  as  each  pupil  attending  a  high  school  would  be 
paid  for  at  the  regular  state  per  capita  apportionment  rate.  But 
while  the  use  of  any  one  of  these  bases  might  prove  just  to  the 
large  high  schools,  any  one  would  manifestly  be  as  unjust  to  the 
small  high  school  as  to  the  small  elementary  school.  The  larger 
schools  would  receive  a  liberal  allowance,  though  needing  assist- 
ance least ;  the  smaller  ones  would  receive  but  a  pittance,  though 
needing  assistance  most.  The  essential  unit  in  higher  as  in  ele- 
mentary instruction  is  the  teacher  who  must  be  employed  to  teach 
the  pupils,  and  not  the  number  of  pupils  alone.  Under  a  teacher- 
employed  basis,  a  high  school  would  share  equally  with  other 
schools,  and  under  a  combination  of  teacher-employed  and  attend- 
ance bases,  as  used  in  New  Jersey,  the  high  school  is  placed  on 
the  same  basis  as  any  other  school,  and  thus  becomes  an  integral 
part  of  the  state's  system  of  instruction.  If  this  is  not  considered 
sufficient,  due  to  the  greater  cost  of  high  school  education,  a  small 
lump  sum  could  be  granted  additional  for  every  complete  and 
accredited  school. 

Permissive  local  taxation  for  secondary  schools  must  then  be 
regarded  as  the  mere  beginning  of  the  process  of  aid  toward  the 
maintenance  of  higher  schools.  Communities  are  allowed  to 
form  such  schools  and  to  tax  themselves  to  support  them.  Per- 
missive county  taxation  is  a  big  extension  of  the  conception  as 
to  the  place  and  value  of  these  higher  schools.  The  granting  of 
state  subsidies  to  high  schools,  in  the  form  of  direct  grants,  must 
be  looked  upon  merely  as  the  beginning  of  general  state  aid  for 
secondary  education,  and  as  an  entering  wedge  to  secure  general 
acceptance  of  the  principle  involved.  A  state  should  not  remain 
longer  at  this  stage  than  is  necessary  to  prepare  the  way  for  the 
adoption  of  some  better  method.  The  next  step  is  the  adoption 
of  some  such  plan  as  the  one  now  used  by  California  or  by  New 
Jersey.  The  California  plan,  definitely  setting  aside  all  present 
money  for  the  exclusive  use  of  primary  and  grammar  schools, 
may  enable  a  state  to  make  better  provision  for  both  its  elemen- 
tary and  secondary  schools  than  could  otherwise  be  done,  but  the 
New  Jersey  plan,  if  additional  funds  are  provided  so  as  not  to 
rob  the  elementary  schools,  is  certainly  the  simpler  and  the  more 
desirable,  as  it  at  once  abolishes  all  artificial  divisions  in  educa- 
tion, forms  one  unified  public  school  system,  and  makes  provision 
for  aid  to  any  form  of  future  high  school  instruction  without  the 
necessity  of  special  legislation. 


Equalising  Advantages  of  Secondary  Education         237 

This  abolition  of  artificial  distinctions  must  not  be  considered 
as  an  unimportant  gain.  The  school  system  should  proceed  from 
the  kindergarten  to  and  through  the  high  school  with  as  few 
artificial  divisions  as  possible,  the  whole  being  regarded  as  a  con- 
tinuous educational  process.  Grades  and  classes  may  be  admin- 
istrative necessities,  but  otherwise  they  have  no  educational  sig- 
nificance. If  in  the  future  a  six  years'  high  school  should  prove 
to  be  a  desirable  addition  to  our  school  work,  the  present  some- 
what rigid  classification  in  a  number  of  states  would  have  to  be 
changed,  and  this  would  require  years  of  discussion  and  effort. 
Present  laws  would  in  many  states  only  stand  in  the  way  of  its 
proper  development.  Under  the  teacher-employed  and  attend- 
ance bases  no  amendment  of  laws  would  be  necessary.  The  New 
Jersey  plan  is  thus  preferable  to  the  California  plan.  The  for- 
mer adjusts  itself  automatically  to  any  change  which  seems  de- 
sirable; the  latter  is  much  more  rigid,  and  a  technical  State 
Superintendent  of  Public  Instruction  who  desired  to  do  so  could 
interpose  very  serious  objections  to  any  departure  from  the  regu- 
lation four  years'  type  of  'high  school,  and  could  retard  develop- 
ment for  years.  In  a  country  where  the  educational  system  is 
changing  as  rapidly  as  in  our  own  it  is  very  desirable  that  our 
laws  should  be  made  somewhat  flexible.  We  have  little  to  fear 
from  encouraging  experiments;  almost  all  the  progress  we  have 
made  in  fifty  years  has  been  made  by  the  cities,  and  made  by  them 
largely  because  their  larger  means  and  freedom  from  official  re- 
strictions gave  them  a  chance  to  experiment. 

Another  form  of  the  problem  of  equalizing  the  advantages  of 
secondary  education  which  has  been  considered  by  a  number  of 
states  within  the  past  ten  years  is  that  of  making  some  kind  of 
general  provision  for  securing  these  advantages  to  children  who 
do  not  happen  to  live  in  districts  or  towns  where  a  high  school  is 
maintained.  This  has  taken  the  form  of  the  state  relieving  the 
parent  of  the  burden  of  the  tuition  charge  at  a  neighboring 
school,  the  state  either  assuming  the  charge  in  whole  or  in  part, 
or  directing  the  school  district  in  which  the  pupil  lives  to  assume 
it.  The  effect  of  this  is  at  once  to  make  provision  for  free  sec- 
ondary education  for  every  child  in  the  state,  in  theory  at  least, 
and  secondary  education  is  accordingly  assumed  as  within  the 
province  of  the  educational  work  of  the  state. 

The  method  employed  in  doing  this  varies  in  different  states. 


238  School  Funds  and  their  Apportionment 

In  Indiana,30  for  example,  the  pupil  must  make  yearly  applica- 
tion to  the  school  trustee  of  his  district  for  a  transfer,  which,  if 
granted,  involves  the  payment  of  his  tuition  as  well;  in  Ohio,31 
the  township  in  which  the  pupil  lives  is  directed  to  assume  the 
charge;  in  Wisconsin,82  high  schools  must  admit  non-resident 
pupils  if  their  facilities  permit  of  their  so  doing,  present  a  bill  for 
tuition  to  the  town  from  which  the  pupils  come,  and  said  town 
shall  enter  the  item  for  tuition  on  the  tax  roll  of  the  town,  and 
when  collected  pay  it  over  to  the  high  school  which  has  furnished 
the  tuition;  in  Massachusetts,33  the  town  must  pay  the  tuition, 
unless  the  total  valuation  of  the  town  is  less  than  $750,000,  in 
which  case  the  state  pays  it,  or  unless  the  valuation  is  over  $750,- 
ooo  and  the  town  has  less  than  five  hundred  families  or  house- 
holders resident  in  the  town,  in  which  case  the  state  pays  half  of 
the  tuition;  Rhode  Island34  provides  than  any  town  not  main- 
taining a  high  school,  but  arranging  with  an  academy  or  high 
school  in  another  town  for  free  high  school  tuition  for  all  its 
pupils,  shall  receive  aid  from  the  state  "  on  the  same  basis  and 
to  the  same  extent  as  if  it  maintained  a  high  school  by  itself ;" 
Maine  35  will  reimburse  towns  to  the  extent  of  half  the  tuition 
paid  provided  the  same  does  not  exceed  $250;  Connecticut  will 
reimburse  the  towns  to  the  extent  of  two-thirds  of  the  tuition 
paid,36  and  also  pay  one-half  of  the  cost  of  transportation,37  to 
enable  the  pupils  to  attend  the  high  school,  though  not  over  $30 
per  pupil  per  year  in  the  first  case  or  over  $20  in  the  second 

30  7m/.  Rev.  Stat.  1901,  Sec.  5959  b. 

31  Rev.  Stat.  of  Ohio,  as  amended  to  1904,  Ft.  2,  Title  III,  Ch.  9,  Sec. 
4029-30. 

32  Wis.  Laws  of  1903,  Ch.  329,  amending  Ch.  188  of  the  Laws  of  1901, 
Sees.  2-6. 

33  Revised  Laws   of  Mass.,   Ch.   42,   Sec.   3,   as   amended   by   Ch.   433, 
Acts   of   1902.    If  the  town   has    over   five  'hundred   families    or   house- 
holders,   it   must  maintain   its  own   high   school.     Aid   for  high    schools 
was  first  begun  in  1895. 

34  "An  Act  to  secure  a  more  uniform  standard  in  the  public  schools  of 
this  State,"  passed  May  4,  1898;   Ch.  544,  Sec.  3. 

35  Me.  Rev.  Stat.,  1903,  Ch.  15,  Sec.  64. 

86  Conn.    Gen.    Stat.,    Sec.    2240.    First    enacted    in    1897,    amended   in 
1899  and  1901. 
37  Conn.  Laws  of  1903,  Ch.  182,  Sec.  2. 


Equalising  Advantages  of  Secondary  Education         239 

case;  while  New  Hampshire38  has  a  graded  scheme  for  aid  to 
those  towns  which  have  paid  high  school  tuition,  whose  school 
tax  is  over  3.5  mills,  and  whose  total  town  tax  is  over  16.5  mills 
in  any  year,  beginning  with  a  grant  of  one-tenth  of  the  tuition 
paid  if  the  total  tax  is  from  16.5  to  17.5  mills,  and  increasing  one- 
tenth  for  each  increase  of  one  mill  in  total  tax.  A  few  other 
states  have  made  some  provisions  of  a  nature  similar  to  some 
one  of  the  above. 

Most  of  these  tuition  laws  have  been  enacted  quite  recently, 
and  represent  a  very  recent  movement  looking  to  the  placing  of 
the  advantages  of  free  secondary  education  within  the  reach  of 
every  child  in  the  state.  This  movement  is  to  be  encouraged.  It 
is  not  necessary  or  desirable  that  every  district  or  township 
should  maintain  its  own  free  secondary  school,  but  it  is  very  de- 
sirable that  the  advantages  of  free  secondary  education  should 
be  made  possible  for  every  child  in  every  district  or  town  of  the 
state.  The  pupil  who  goes  on  to  a  secondary  school  is  much 
more  likely  to  be  of  benefit  to  the  state  in  the  future  than  the  one 
who  has  no  such  ambition.  If  a  state  grant  in  any  form  is  made 
to  high  schools,  it  would  seem  proper  that  the  tuition  charges 
should  be  limited  to  the  actual  cost  of  such  instruction  per  pupil 
after  deducting  the  amount  of  state  aid  received,  and  also  that 
some  per  capita  or  some  other  fractional  grant  be  made  to  dis- 
tricts which  have  paid  tuition  for  their  pupils  at  some  neighbor- 
ing high  school.  The  New  Hampshire  plan  of  allowing  the 
towns  to  count  all  such  pupils  paid  for  as  though  they  had  been 
enrolled  in  their  own  schools,39  for  the  state  apportionment,  is 
worthy  of  mention  in  this  connection. 

38  "An  Act  relating  to  high  schools,"  N.  Hamp.,  Ses.  Laws  of  1901,  Ch. 
96,  Sec.  3. 

*»Ibid.,  Sec.  5. 


CHAPTER  XV 
STATE  SUBSIDIES  FOR  OTHER  ADVANTAGES 

THE  census  basis  of  apportionment  may  be  said  to  compre- 
hend but  one  class  of  schools — the  so-called  "  common  schools." 
As  soon  as  we  leave  the  ordinary  type  of  required  school  there  is 
no  means  of  offering  any  incentive  toward,  or  reward  for,  the 
development  of  any  additional  or  desirable  type  of  education. 
We  pointed  this  out  in  the  last  chapter  with  reference  to  secon- 
dary education,  and  in  this  chapter  we  wish  to  point  out  the  same 
condition  with  reference  to  a  number  of  those  more  recent  and 
valuable  supplemental  efforts  which  a  few  communities  have 
made  to  provide  a  better  and  a  richer  education  for  their  chil- 
dren. These  include  such  additional  and  costly  efforts  as  the 
provision  of  kindergartens,  manual  training,  physical  training, 
evening  schools,  small  schools  for  special  classes,  such  as  oral  day 
schools  for  the  deaf,  parental  schools,  and  vacation  schools. 
Every  pupil  who  attends  any  one  of  these  schools  has  already 
been  counted  for  the  census  apportionment,  so  nothing  additional 
can  be  given  under  this  basis  of  apportionment  to  a  community 
which  provides  any  one  or  even  all  of  these  advantages. 

The  fact  that  these  are  at  present  maintained  almost  entirely 
in  the  cities,  and  that  the  cities  already  get  more  than  their  share 
under  the  census  basis  of  apportionment,  has  been  made  a  reason 
for  the  common  requirement  that  all  such  schools,  in  common 
with  the  high  schools,  shall  be  maintained  entirely  by  the  cities 
which  can  afford  them.  This  may  be  perfectly  defensible  under 
the  census  basis  of  apportionment,  as  we  have  previously  pointed 
out,  but  it  is  not  good  that  it  should  be  so,  and  under  a  rational 
system  of  apportionment  it  would  not  be  just.  Kindergartens  and 
manual  training  at  least  would  be  very  useful  additions  to  the 
educational  systems  of  the  towns  and  minor  cities,  and  some  form 
of  evening  or  continuation  school  could  probably  be  added  with 
great  advantage.  Such  advantages,  however,  are  usually  not 
found  outside  of  the  larger  cities,  partly  due  to  the  fact  that  the 
state  usually  places  all  its  emphasis  on  the  ordinary  type  of 
"  common  school,"  and  these  advantages  are  accordingly  looked 
upon  as  only  the  "  extras  "  or  the  "  fads  and  frills  "  of  educa- 
tion, and  partly  due  to  the  fact  that  such  advantages  must  usually 

(240) 


State  Subsidies  for  other  Advantages  241 

be  provided  for  entirely  at  the  cost  of  the  community,  and  hence 
the  smaller  places  cannot  afford  them.  The  progress  that  is 
made  in  enriching  education  is  thus  almost  entirely  due  to  the 
influence  of  the  example  set  by  the  larger  cities,  the  state  usually 
occupying  a  purely  negative  position  in  the  matter.  The  state, 
though,  ought  to  occupy  a  very  positive  position  by  making  it 
an  object  to  communities  to  add  new  and  desirable  advantages  to 
their  schools.  A  few  states  have  taken  an  advanced  position  in 
this  matter,  but  most  of  the  states  have  taken  no  positive  action, 
while  their  apportionment  laws  place  a  premium  against  any 
efforts  in  this  direction. 

A  few  illustrations  of  positive  state  action  may  be  given.  In 
New  Jersey,  kindergartens  x  form  an  integral  part  of  the  state 
school  system,  the  teacher  counting  for  the  teacher-employed  or 
"  teacher-quota "  apportionment,  and  the  children  attending 
counting  in  the  aggregate  days'  attendance  of  the  schools.  In 
New  York  the  same  condition  exists.  In  New  Jersey,  also,  the 
state  duplicates  any  special  tax  or  subscription  of  over  $250 
raised  for  the  establishment  or  maintenance  of  instruction  in 
manual  training  2  in  any  school  district,  up  to  a  sum  of  $5,000 
per  year  to  (such  district ;  Wisconsin  grants  $250  per  year  to  a 
high  school  which  provides  approved  instruction  in  manual  train- 
ing,8 but  at  present  limits  the  number  of  schools  to  be  so  aided 
to  twenty;  and  Kansas  has  recently  provided  for  a  maximum 
state  grant  of  $250  per  year  to  any  city  or  district  establishing 
manual  training  4  as  a  part  of  the  regular  instruction.  In  New 
York  or  New  Jersey  a  teacher  of  manual  training  (unless  other- 
wise provided  for  in  New  Jersey  in  the  grant  for  manual  train- 
ing instruction),  cooking,  or  physical  training,  would  be  counted 
for  the  teacher-employed  apportionment  the  same  as  any  other 
teacher.  In  California,  cities  and  districts  are  permitted  to  estab- 
lish oral  day-school  for  the  instruction  of  deaf  children,5  and  a 
regular  teacher  basis  of  apportionment  of  $550  is  made  to  each 

1  School  Lazus  of  New  Jersey,  as  enacted  by  the  2nd  Sp.  Ses.  I27th  Leg., 
and  Approved  Oct.  19,  1903;  Ch.  I,  Art.  XII,  Sees.  145-147. 

2  Ibid.,  Ch.  I,  Art.  XXII,  Sees.  205-207. 

3  Wis.   Annotated  Stat.    of   1898,    Sec.    496c;    as   amended   by  Ch.   273, 
Laws  of  1899. 

4  Kas.  Laws  of  1903,  Ch.  20,  Sec.  5 ;  School  Laws  of  1903,  Sec.  204. 

5  Polit.  Code  of  Cal,  Sec.  1618,  and  Sec.  1858,  div.  i,  as  amended  by 
Assembly  Bill  No.  277,  Leg.  Ses.  of  1905. 


242  School  Funds  and  their  Apportionment 

city  or  district  having  done  so  for  every  nine  deaf  children  on 
the  census  lists ;  in  Connecticut,  towns  and  districts  having  main- 
tained an  evening  school 6  for  seventy-five  sessions  receive  a  state 
grant  of  $2.25  for  each  pupil  in  average  evening  attendance;  in 
New  Jersey,  evening  schools  7  are  regarded  as  half-day  schools, 
the  teacher  being  apportioned  for  as  a  partial  teacher  ($80)  and 
two  evenings'  attendance  being  counted  for  the  state  attendance 
apportionment  as  equivalent  to  one  day  of  attendance  at  a  day 
school ;  in  New  Jersey,  parental  schools  8  are  paid  for  on  the 
same  basis  as  regular  day  schools ;  in  Massachusetts,  any  city  or 
town  may  establish  and  maintain  vacation  schools,9  paying  for 
these  out  of  the  common  school  funds,  though  of  course  the 
Massachusetts  cities  derive  all  their  funds  from  local  taxation. 
A  few  other  examples  could  be  given,  but  the  number  of  states 
which  have  taken  any  positive  action  to  encourage  the  introduc- 
tion of  these  new  advantages  is  small.  Nearly  all  the  provisions 
which  have  been  made,  however,  have  been  made  within  the  last 
ten  years,  so  that  there  is  every  probability  that  the  future  will 
see  a  great  extension  of  state  aid  and  encouragement  for  these 
desirable  educational  advantages. 

As  we  have  said  above,  the  recognition  of  any  of  these  newer 
advantages — kindergartens,  manual  training,  physical  training, 
evening  schools,  small  schools  for  special  classes,  parental  schools, 
and  vacation  schools — is  impossible  under  the  census  basis  of 
apportionment,  without  a  special  grant  or  some  special  amend- 
ment to  the  general  apportionment  law.  These  amendments  are 
always  difficult  to  obtain  and  are  an  undesirable  method  of 
accomplishing  results.  By  far  the  best  method  is  to  so  arrange 
the  apportionment  law  that  any  new  effort  is  automatically  in- 
cluded, as  soon  as  it  shall  have  been  recognized  by  law  or  by 
official  decision  as  forming  a  part  of  the  system  of  public  in- 
struction. 

Under  an  enrollment  or  an  attendance  basis  of  apportionment, 
pupils  in  kindergartens,  evening  schools,  vacation  schools,  and 
small  schools  for  special  classes  would  be  included  for  the  state 

6  Conn.  Gen.  Stat.,  Sec.  2148.    Grant  first  made  in  1885. 

7  School  Laws  of  N.  /.,  *  *  Approved  Oct.  19,  1903 ;  Ch.  I,  Art.  XIII, 
Sees.  148-149. 

8  Ibid.,  Ch.  I,  Art  XV,  Sees.  161-164. 

9  Revised  Laws   of   Mass,    relating   to   Public  Instr.,    Ch.   42,   Sec.    15, 
Laws  of  1899,  246. 


State  Subsidies  for  other  Advantages  243 

apportionment,  but  the  pupils  in  manual  training  and  physical 
training  would  already  have  been  counted  in  the  ordinary  school, 
and  the  grant  received  for  small  schools  for  the  instruction  of 
special  classes  would  be  but  a  mere  pittance  toward  the  expense 
of  maintaining  them.  The  teacher-employed  basis  of  apportion- 
ment gives  proper  recognition  to  all  of  these  efforts,  and  a  com- 
bination of  the  teacher-employed  basis  and  the  attendance  basis 
at  once  recognizes  the  unit  of  expense  in  all  such  schools,  the 
cost  for  the  teacher,  and  also  the  greater  fluctuations  in  attend- 
ance to  which  these  schools  are  subject. 

This  basis  of  apportionment  at  once  makes  it  possible  to  recog- 
nize any  one  or  all  of  these  newer  efforts.  All  that  is  necessary 
to  properly  provide  for  these  is  the  recognition  of  any  one  of 
them  as  forming  a  part  of  the  state  system  of  public  instruction, 
and  a  statement  of  the  conditions  under  which  it  may  share. 
Kindergartens,  small  schools  for  special  classes,  such  as  oral 
schools  for  the  deaf,  and  parental  schools,  can  be  regarded,  in 
common  with  high  schools,  as  regular  day  schools  and  as  integral 
parts  of  the  public  school  system.  An  apportionment  is  accord- 
ingly made  for  the  teachers  employed  in  each,  and  a  supplemental 
apportionment  is  made  for  the  attendance  at  each.  The  manual 
training  teacher,  the  cooking  and  sewing  teachers,  and  the  teacher 
of  physical  training  are  all  counted  for  the  teacher-employed  ap- 
portionment, but  for  attendance  only  so  far  as  the  presence  of 
such  work  increases  the  regular  attendance  of  the  schools.  A 
manual  training,  drawing,  music,  or  other  special  teacher  em- 
ployed by  two  or  three  different  school  boards  may  be  paid  for 
and  the  grant  be  divided  in  the  proper  proportions  among  the 
different  districts.  Evening  school  teachers  may  be  regarded  as 
half-time  teachers  and  allowed  for  at  a  half  of  the  regular  teacher- 
employed  grant,  and  evening  school  attendance  may  be  similarly 
regarded  as  half-day  attendance  and  two  evenings  be  taken  as  the 
equivalent  of  one  day's  attendance  at  a  regular  day  school. 
Teachers  in  vacation  schools,  if  these  should  ever  be  included  in 
the  state  school  system,  could,  in  a  similar  manner,  be  regarded 
as  one-fourth  or  one-fifth  of  regular  teachers,  while  the  attend- 
ance at  such  schools  could  be  paid  for  on  the  basis  of  aggregate 
days'  attendance.  The  ordinary  type  of  high  school,  manual 
training  schools,  and  industrial  schools,  if  the  future  should  wit- 
ness the  establishment  of  the  third  as  a  part  of  our  public  school 


244  School  Funds  and  their  Apportionment 

system,  would  share  alike  with  other  schools.  By  means  of  the 
apportionment  on  teachers  employed  the  plan  at  once  recognizes 
any  effort  which  a  community  of  any  size  makes  to  improve  its 
schools  by  the  employment  of  additional  teachers,  and  by  means 
of  the  attendance  basis  the  plan  gives  recognition  to  any  increase 
in  the  attendance  at  the  schools  as  a  result  of  these  efforts. 

The  simplicity  and  justice  of  such  a  plan  and  the  elimination  of 
all  necessity  of  amending  the  apportionment  law  every  time  it  is 
desired  to  recognize  any  new  and  desirable  effort  are  strong 
points  in  its  favor,  and  make  it  the  most  desirable  means  of 
reaching  the  end  sought.  But,  while  this  may  be  the  most  desir- 
able way  of  securing  recognition  for  these  various  advantages,  it 
may  not  be  the  easiest  way,  because  of  the  difficulty  of  recon- 
structing the  general  apportionment  law.  If  not,  then  certain 
grants  should  be  given,  or  certain  modifications  of  the  apportion- 
ment law  should  be  made,  so  as  to  recognize  the  more  important 
of  these  efforts.  When  the  time  comes  for  the  reconstruction  of 
the  apportionment  law  on  better  lines,  then  these  special  grants 
can  be  done  away  with  and  the  whole  incorporated  in  an  inclusive 
apportionment  law. 

The  result  of  such  recognition  would  at  first  be  to  aid  only  the 
large  cities,  because  they  are  almost  alone  in  the  possession  of 
these  advantages,  but  in  time  the  smaller  cities  and  towns  would 
be  stimulated  to  provide  some  of  these  advantages  for  their  chil- 
dren, and  then  they  too  would  share  in  the  extra  apportionment 
grants.  Many  of  these  smaller  cities  and  towns  would  at  once 
provide  some  of  these  extra  advantages  if  it  were  not  for  the 
difficulty  of  paying  for  them.  State  encouragement  in  this  direc- 
tion would  be  very  useful. 

Another  recent  effort  to  equalize  the  advantages  of  education 
which  is  worthy  of  particular  mention  is  the  effort  to  provide 
professional  supervision  for  all  schools.  Skilled  supervision  is 
generally  regarded  by  cities  as  a  good  investment,  and  a  few 
states  have  recently  made  an  effort  to  provide  for  the  extension 
of  the  principle  so  as  to  ultimately  secure  the  same  advantages 
for  all  of  the  schools  of  the  state.  In  Massachusetts  the  idea  has 
been  carried  to  its  logical  conclusion,  and  professional  supervision 
has  been  provided,  as  it  should  be,  for  every  good  school  in  the 
state. 

Feeling  that  what  was  good  for  the  larger  and  wealthier  towns 


State  Subsidies  for  other  Advantages  245 

was  good  for  all,  Massachusetts  began,  in  1888,  to  encourage 
small  towns  to  employ  a  superintendent  of  schools.  This  was 
done  by  giving  to  such  towns  a  state  grant  toward  paying  the 
salary  of  such  a  person.10  To  guard  against  the  employment  of 
inferior  persons  for  the  positions,  the  minimum  salary  of  the 
superintendent  to  be  employed  was  fixed  at  $1,250,  toward  which 
the  state  gave  $500,  and  also  $500  additional  toward  increasing 
the  salaries  of  the  teachers  employed  under  such  a  superintendent. 
The  minimum  salary  to  be  paid  was  soon  increased  to  $1,500,  the 
state  contributing  $750  of  the  amount.  The  effect  of  this  grant 
was  .such  that  by  1900  the  state  was  able  to  require  X1  that,  be- 
ginning with  1902,  every  town  in  the  state  should  either  employ  a 
superintendent  or  join  with  one  or  more  other  towns  in  the  em- 
ployment of  one.  Towns  having  a  valuation  of  less  than  $2,- 
500,000  were  given  state  aid,  provided  the  amount  raised  by  the 
towns  to  pay  the  superintendent  of  schools  is  "  in  addition  to  an 
amount  equal  to  the  average  of  the  total  amount  paid,  or  to  the 
amount  paid  for  each  child,  by  the  several  towns  for  schools  dur- 
ing the  three  years  then  last  preceding."  Upon  a  certificate  to 
this  effect,  the  state  grants  $750  for  the  salary  of  the  superin- 
tendent, and  $500  additional  for  the  salaries  of  the  teachers  em- 
ployed.12 This  wise  system  of  grants  has  given  Massachusetts 
the  best  and  most  complete  system  of  supervision  of  any  state  in 
the  Union,  and  the  cost  has  been  but  little.  In  1901-02  the  total 
state  grants  under  this  law,  both  for  the  salaries  of  superintend- 
ents and  for  increases  to  teachers,  amounted  to  only  $95,000,  and 
it  is  estimated  that  $100,000  will  be  the  maximum  sum  required 
at  any  time.13 

The  other  New  England  states  have  recently  made  the  begin- 
ning of  a  similar  plan.  Rhode  Island 14  and  Maine 15  have 
agreed  to  pay  half  of  the  salary  of  the  superintendent,  though  not 
over  $750,  to  any  town  or  union  of  towns;  Connecticut16  has 
similarly  agreed  to  pay  half  the  salary  for  any  town,  up  to  a 

10  Mass.  Acts  of  1888,  Ch.  431. 

1 1  Mass.  Laws  of  1900,  Ch.  248. 

12  Mass.  Laws  of  1898,  Ch.  466,  Sec.  3. 

18  66th  An.  Rept.  Mass.  Bd.  Educ.,  1901-02,  p.  156. 
1 *  Rhode  Island  Laws  of  1903,  Ch.  noi,  Sec.  4. 

15  Maine  Rev.  Stat.  1903,  Ch.  15,  Sec.  42. 

16  Conn.  Laws  of  1903,  Ch.  195,  Sec.  3. 


246  School  Funds  and  their  Apportionment 

maximum  of  $800;  New  Hampshire17  has  agreed  to  pay  half 
the  salary  for  any  supervisory  union,  and  has  made  an  annual 
appropriation  of  $6,250  for  the  purpose;  and  Vermont18  has 
agreed  to  pay  twenty  per  cent  of  the  salary  paid.  None  of  these 
states,  with  the  exception  of  Maine,  have  placed  in  their  laws  the 
wise  restrictions  as  to  minimum  salary  which  Massachusetts  has 
had  from  the  first;  in  Maine  the  minimum  salary  is  $1,000.  The 
Massachusetts  extra  grant  for  teachers'  salaries  is  also  a  meri- 
torious feature  of  their  plan. 

New  York  and  New  Jersey  have  also  provided  for  direct  sub- 
sidies to  communities  employing  a  professional  superintendent. 
In  New  York,19  a  special  "  supervision  quota  "  of  $800  is  set 
aside  for  every  city,  village  or  union  school  district  having  a 
population  of  five  thousand  inhabitants  and  employing  a  super- 
intendent of  schools,  and  New  Jersey  20  grants  $600  to  every 
city,  or  district,  or  union  employing  a  superintendent  of  schools 
or  a  supervisory  principal  who  devotes  all  his  time  to  super- 
vision. 

This  plan  might  also  be  used  in  the  Central  States  or  in  the 
West,  if  such  a  plan  should  prove  necessary  as  a  means  of  secur- 
ing good  rural  supervision.  A  far  better  plan,  though,  especially 
in  states  where  the  counties  are  relatively  small,  as  for  example 
in  Indiana  or  Illinois,  would  be  to  eliminate  the  county  superin- 
tendency  entirely  from  politics;  provide  that  the  county  super- 
intendent should  be  appointed  because  of  educational  qualifica- 
tions; free  the  appointing  power  from  the  necessity  of  selecting 
a  resident  of  the  county  for  the  office,  just  as  the  cities  have  been 
freed  from  the  necessity  of  selecting  a  resident  of  the  city  for 
city  superintendent ;  provide  that  each  superintendent  should  have 
a  salary  of  not  less  than  $1,500; 'free  him  from  office  drudgery 
by  providing  him  with  from  $600  to  $800  for  a  deputy  to  do  the 
clerical  work  of  the  office;  and  thus  make  of  him  a  real  educa- 
tional superintendent  of  rural  schools,  holding  an  analogous  posi- 
tion to  that  of  the  city  superintendent  for  the  city  schools.  In 

17  N.  Hamp.  Ses.  Laws  of  1899,  Ch.  77,  Sec.  3,  as  amended  by  Ses. 
Laws  of  1901,  Ch.  1 8. 

18  Vermont  Stat.,  Title  II,  Ch.  33,  Sec.  625.    Laws  of  1892,  No.  21,  Sec.  31. 

19  Consol.  School  Law  of  N.   Y.,  as  amended  to  June,  1903;  Title  II, 
Art.  i,  Sec.  5. 

20  School  Law  of  N.  /.,  *  *  Approved  Oct.  19,  1903,  Ch.  I,  Art.  XVII, 
Sec.   182,  div.  I. 


State  Subsidies  for  other  Advantages  247 

Indiana,  for  example,  a  county  superintendent  is  allowed  $4.00 
for  every  day  he  works.21  If  he  is  able  to  put  in  three  hundred 
days  a  year,  this  means  a  salary  of  $1,200.  There  are  ninety-two 
counties,  which  would  equal  $110,000  for  the  present  form  of 
county  supervision.  The  addition  of  $90,000  more,  or  slightly 
less  than  Massachusetts  spends,  and  under  the  conditions  outlined 
above,  would  in  a  short  time  give  the  state  of  Indiana  as  good  a 
system  of  supervision  as  that  of  Massachusetts.  The  additional 
cost  would  be  about  eight-tenths  of  one  per  cent  of  the  cost  of 
the  school  system,  and  it  is  doubtful  if  an  additional  expense  of 
eight-tenths  of  one  per  cent  could  be  made  in  any  other  direction 
which  would  yield  such  large  returns.  What  is  true  of  Indiana 
is  equally  true  of  other  states  in  the  North  Central  group. 

The  recent  movement  for  the  concentration  of  rural  schools, 
the  transportation  of  pupils,  and  the  building  up  of  rural  graded 
schools  is  another  of  the  recent  efforts  to  equalize  educational 
advantages  which  merits  the  particular  attention  of  the  state. 
The  purpose  is  to  encourage  the  abandonment  of  small  and  in- 
efficient country  schools,  suffering  from  isolation  and  lack  of 
numbers,  and  the  formation,  instead,  of  centralized  and  graded 
two,  three,  or  four-room  schools,  to  which  the  pupils,  living  at 
a  distance,  are  transported  each  morning  and  from  which  they 
are  returned  to  their  homes  each  evening.  The  two  important 
obstacles  to  the  plan  are  the  conservatism  of  communities  and  the 
lack  of  sufficient  funds  to  pay  for  transportation  and  to  provide 
the  type  of  concentrated  school  desired.  In  every  state  there  are 
a  number  of  natural  concentrating  centers,  where  a  certain  num- 
ber of  schools  could  be  concentrated  with  a  great  gain  in  educa- 
tional efficiency  and  no  increase  in  the  cost  of  the  instruction. 
There  are  also  regions  where,  due  to  sparsity  of  population,  lack 
of  roads,  and  other  causes,  no  concentration  of  schools  is  pos- 
sible. Between  these  two  conditions  there  are  other  groups  where 
concentration  is  desirable  and  would  be  possible  except  for  lack 
of  sufficient  funds  to  provide  transportation  and  meet  the  ex- 
penses of  the  concentrated  school.  For  these  a  rearrangement  of 
the  state  apportionment  plan  on  better  lines  would  do  much. 

These  concentrated  schools  are  so  valuable  from  an  educational 
point  of  view,  however,  due  to  the  larger  number  of  children 
present,  more  regular  attendance,  longer  term,  the  division  of  the 

21/nrf.  Rev.  Stat.  1901,  Sec.  5910;  Laws  of  1873,  p.  75. 


248  School  Funds  and  their  Apportionment 

work  among  two  or  more  teachers,  the  larger  classes  and  the  re- 
sulting greater  enthusiasm  of  both  pupils  and  teachers,  the  chance 
for  the  development  of  some  higher  instruction,  etc.,  that  it  is 
the  part  of  wisdom  for  the  state  to  encourage  their  formation. 
This  has  been  done  by  a  few  states  by  means  of  special  subsidies. 
For  example,  Rhode  Island  2Z  has  provided  that  if  "  any  town 
shall  consolidate  three  or  more  ungraded  schools  and  instead 
thereof  shall  establish  and  maintain  a  graded  school  of  two  or 
more  departments,  with  an  average  number  belonging  of  not  less 
than  twenty  pupils  for  each  department,"  the  state  will  pay  such 
a  town  $100  a  year  for  every  department  so  maintained,  and  if 
another  ungraded  school  votes  to  discontinue  its  school  and  unite 
with  the  graded  school  so  maintained,  an  additional  $100  will  be 
paid  each  year.  New  Jersey  28  has  provided  that  whenever  a  dis- 
trict concentrates  its  school  and  provides  proper  transportation, 
$200  shall  be  granted  each  year  in  making  the  county  apportion- 
ment "  for  every  teacher  whose  services  shall  have  been  dispensed 
with  by  reason  of  substituting  transportation  for  the  services  of 
such  teacher,  so  long  as  proper  transportation  shall  be  provided." 
Wisconsin  24  grants  a  subsidy  of  $100  to  a  graded  school  having 
two  departments,  which  meets  certain  requirements,  and,  simi- 
larly, a  subsidy  of  $300  to  a  graded  school  having  three  or  more 
departments.  (Minnesota  25  grants  a  subsidy  of  $400  to  a  graded 
school  of  four  departments  providing  a  nine  months'  term  of 
school,  and  $200  to  a  graded  school  of  two  departments  provid- 
ing an  eight  months'  term.  The  subsidy  plan  of  aid  for  graded 
schools  has  been  adopted  by  a  number  of  states.  It  is  primarily 
intended  to  encourage  a  longer  term,  better  educational  condi- 
tions, the  building  up  of  village  schools,  and  the  gradual  evolu- 
tion of  high  schools,  but  the  plan  can  be  made  to  serve  as  a  valu- 
able aid  -in  securing  the  concentration  of  small  and  inefficient 
schools  as  well. 

Other  forms  of  aid  or  subsidies  have  been  established  by  dif- 

22  "An  Act  to  secure  a  more  uniform  high  standard  in  the  schools  of 
this  State,"  passed  May  4,  1898,  Sees,  i,  2. 

23  School  Law  of  N.  7.  *  *  Approved  Oct.  19,  1903;  Ch.  I,  Art.  XVII, 
Sec.  182,  div.  I. 

24  Wis.  Laws  of  1901,  Oh.  439,  Sec.  9,  Subdiv.  2,  as  amended  by  Laws 
of  1903,  Ch.  285,  Sec.  10. 

25  Minn.  Laws  of  1899,  Ch.  352,  Sees.  14,  19;  as  amended  by  Laws  of 
ipor,  Ch.  189,  Sees.  2,  3. 


State  Subsidies  for  other  Advantages  249 

ferent  states  with  a  view  to  further  equalizing  certain  advantages 
of  education.  The  Maryland  26  provision  appropriating  $150,000 
annually  from  the  state  treasury  for  the  purchase  of  free  text- 
books for  the  children  of  the  state,  to  be  apportioned  to  the 
counties  and  to  the  city  of  Baltimore  on  the  basis  of  enrollment 
in  the  schools  the  previous  year:  the  recent  amendment  to  the 
constitution  of  Louisiana  27  permitting  the  legislature  to  provide 
for  the  issuance  of  $1,000,000  of  twenty-five-year  three-per-cent 
bonds,  the  proceeds  to  be  used  by  necessitous  communities  to  pro- 
vide a  proper  school  building  in  which  a  state  school  may  be  held : 
the  Delaware  28  law  providing  for  an  annual  appropriation  of 
$6,000  to  be  used  in  assisting  colored  school  districts  to  provide 
a  school-house  in  which  to  conduct  a  school :  and  the  Indiana  29 
minimum  salary  law,  which  in  effect  provides  that  no  teacher  in 
the  state  shall  be  paid  less  than  $40  ,a  month,  may  all  be  cited  as 
examples.  The  last  is  an  especially  meritorious  law,  as  its  ten- 
dency will  be  to  provide  the  child  with  a  better  teacher. 

Most  of  the  recent  educational  efforts  are  so  valuable  that  some 
provision  ought  to  be  made  for  them  which  will  lead  to  their 
more  general  adoption  by  the  smaller  communities  of  the  state. 
Under  the  usual  census  apportionment  basis  this  is  not  possible. 
If  the  state  apportionment  is  not  too  small,  and  if  the  state  ap- 
portionment plan  cannot  be  remodeled  on  more  rational  lines,  then 
a  series  of  patches  ought  to  be  put  on  the  old  plan  so  as  to  grant 
some  recognition  to  a  few  of  the  more  important  of  these  new 
efforts.  By  far  the  best  method,  though,  is  to  so  arrange  the 
general  apportionment  plan  as  to  automatically  include  as  many 
as  possible  of  these  new  efforts,  and  then  increase  the  state  funds 
if  necessary.  The  best  apportionment  plan  for  this  purpose  is  a 
combination  of  the  teacher-actuallyyemployed  basis  with  the  aggre- 
gate days'  attendance  basis,  with  such  special  additional  grants 
for  supervision  and  concentration  of  schools  as  may  seem  desir- 
able. In  fact,  this  combination  basis  is  the  most  generally  useful 
for  all  purposes  and  the  most  generally  just  of  any  we  have  in 
use.  Combined  with  a  small  reserve  fund  for  further  equaliza- 
tion, it  would  form  an  almost  ideal  apportionment  plan  for  any 
state  having  sufficient  funds  at  hand  to  make  its  use  possible. 

26  Maryland  Laws  of  1900,  Ch.  330. 

27  La.  Acts  of  1904,  No.  37,  Sec.  6.  28  Del.  Laws  of  1903,  Ch.  342. 

28  Ind.  Laws  of  1903,  p.  528.     Approved  March  u,  1903. 


CHAPTER  XVI 
SUMMARY  OF  CONCLUSIONS 

WE  (have  stated  the  conclusions  at  which  we  have  arrived  in 
such  detail  in  each  chapter  that  only  a  brief  summary  need  be 
made  here.  For  proofs  and  for  a  detailed  statement  of  the 
reasons  for  the  conclusions  the  reader  must  consult  the  different 
chapters.  The  investigation  seems  to  warrant  the  following  con- 
clusions : 

1.  That  due  to  the  changing  and  the  very  unequal  distribution 
of  wealth,  and  to  the  absence  of  any  relation  between  this  dis- 
tribution and  the  number  of  schools  which  must  be  maintained, 
the  attempt  on  the  part  of  different  communities  to  meet  the  de- 
mands set  by  the  state  causes  very  unequal  burdens.     What  one 
community  can  do  with  ease  is  often  an  excessive  burden  for 
another  community.     (Chapters  II,  III,  IV.) 

2.  That,  in  a  general  way,  the  wealth  behind  each  child  to  be 
educated  or  each  school  to  be  maintained  is  greatest  where  the 
total  wealth  is  greatest,  and  least  where  the  total  wealth  is  least. 
(Chapters  III,  IV,  XIII.) 

3.  That  while  it  may  be  possible  to  maintain  schools  entirely  or 
almost  entirely  by  local  taxation,  the  doing  so  involves  very  slight 
efforts  on  the  part  of  some  communities,  and  very  excessive  bur- 
dens for  other  communities,  and  that  progress  under  such  a  plan 
is  slow  and  difficult.     (Chapters  III,  IV.) 

4.  That  these  excessive  burdens,  borne  in  large  part  for  the 
common  good,  should  be  in  part  equalized  by  the  state.     To  do 
this  some  form  of  general  aid  is  necessary. 

5.  That  a   state  school   tax   equalizes   the  burdens  best  and 
easiest  and  is  the  most  desirable  single  form  of  general  taxation 
for  schools.     (Chapter  VI.)     What  per  cent  of  the  total  expense 
this  state  tax  should  bear,  and  how  far  it  should  be  supplemented 
by  other  forms  of  taxation,  we  do  not  attempt  to  say,  though 
burdens  and  advantages  can  be  equalized  better  and  more  easily 

(250) 


Summary  of  Conclusions  251 

if  the  proportion  is  relatively  large.     It  should  not,  however,  con- 
stitute the  chief  means  of  support  for  all  the  schools  of  a  state. 

6.  That  any  form  of  taxation  or  endowment  for  schools  fails 
to  accomplish  the  ends  for  which  it  was  created  unless  a  wise 
system  of  distribution  is  provided. 

7.  That  judged  by  the  purposes  and  the  standards  which  we 
said  in  Chapter  I  should  control,  and  which  we  believe  to  be  cor- 
rect principles,  but  few  states  have  as  yet  evolved  a  just  and 
equitable  plan  for  distributing  the  funds  which,  they  have  at  hand, 
and  in  most  of  the  states  much  better  educational  results  could  be 
obtained  with  the  same  money  by  the  use  of  some  better  plan  of 
distribution. 

8.  That  of  the  different  single  bases  used  for  the  apportion- 
ment of  funds,  "  taxes-where-paid  "  and  the  property-valuation 
bases  have  no  educational  significance,  and  do  not  tend  to  equal- 
ize either  the  burdens  or  the  advantages  of  education.     (Chap- 
ter VII.) 

9.  That  the  use  of  total  population  as  a  basis  of  apportionment, 
while   an   improvement  over  "  taxes-where-paid "   or  property- 
valuation,   is  at  best  only  a   rough  and   unreliable   method   of 
approximately  determining  the  number  of  children   for  whose 
education  provision  is  to  be  made.     (Chapter  VIII.) 

10.  That  the  use  of  the  school  census  basis  for  the  apportion- 
ment of  funds,  as  required  by  so  many  state  constitutions,  and  as 
used  in  whole  or  in  part  by  thirty-eight  different  states   (Table 
No.  37),  though  an  improvement  over  the  other  apportionment 
bases  so  far  mentioned  (8  and  9,  above),  is,  nevertheless,  one  of 
the  worst  and  most  unjust  bases  of  apportionment  we  have  in 
use,  and  its  complete  abandonment  in  the  future  for  some  better 
single  basis  or  for  a  combination  basis  plan  is  greatly  to  be  de- 
sired.    (Chapter  IX.) 

11.  That  total   enrollment,    enrollment   for  a   definite  period, 
average  membership,   average  daily  attendance,  and  aggregate 
days'  attendance  are  each  successive  improvements  over  the  cen- 
sus basis  of  apportionment,  and  each  places  a  premium  on  more 
efforts  which  a  community  ought  to  be  encouraged  to  make  than 
the  one  preceding  it.     (Chapters  X,  XL) 

12.  That  all  these  bases  are  defective  when  used  alone,  be- 
cause none  make  any  better  provision  for  the  needs  of  the  small 
school  than  is  made  under  the  census  basis  of  apportionment, 


252  School  Funds  and  their  Apportionment 

while  aggregate  days'  attendance,  used  alone,  would  leave  the 
small  school  in  even  worse  financial  condition.  (Chapters  IX, 
X,  XL) 

13.  That  the  real  unit  of  cost  is  the  teacher  who  must  be  em- 
ployed to  teach  the  school,  and  not  the  children  who  may  or  do 
attend,  and  that  the  teacher  actually  employed  should  accordingly 
occupy  a  prominent  place  in  any  general  apportionment  plan,  the 
remainder  being  given  on  a  basis  which  considers  regularity  of 
attendance  at  the  school.     (Chapter  XII.) 

14.  That  more  equitable  results  could  be  obtained  by  distribut- 
ing all  funds  on  the  basis  of  teachers  actually  employed  than  on 
any  other  single  basis  (8,  9,  10,  or  n,  above),  and  that  the  gen- 
eral adoption  of  this  basis  would  be  an  improvement  over  the 
census  basis,  but  that  the  best  results  can  only  be  obtained  by  a 
combination  of  two  or  more  bases,  and  hence  a  combination  basis 
type  of   apportionment  is  preferable  to   any   single   basis   type. 
(Chapter  XII.) 

15.  That,   where  the   fund  at  hand  for  distribution  is  large 
enough  to  permit  of  the  use  of  such  a  plan,  the  best  basis  for 
the  distribution  of  funds  is  a  combination  of  teacher-actually- 
employed  and  aggregate  days'  attendance  (or  average  daily  at- 
tendance multiplied  by  length  of  term).     (Chapter  XII.) 

1 6.  That   if   this    combination   basis    of    apportionment    were 
adopted  by  many  of  the  states  now  using  the  census  basis  of 
apportionment,  the  minimum  demands  of  the  states  could,  in  most 
cases,  be  substantially  increased  without  increasing  the  general 
school  tax.     (Chapters  XI,  XII,  XIII.) 

17.  That  it  is  both  just  and  desirable  that  the  efforts  made  by 
communities  to  provide   secondary  education  and  many  of  the 
more   recent   advantages   of    education,    such   as   kindergartens, 
manual  training,  evening  schools,  etc.  (Chapter  XV),  should  be 
recognized  by  the  state  in  making  the  apportionment  of  funds, 
and  that  an  incentive  should  be  given  to  communities  to  provide 
these  advantages  for  their  children.     (Chapters  XIV,  XV.) 

1 8.  That  even  after  a  distribution  has  been  made  on  such  a 
combination  basis  as  that  mentioned  in  15,  there  still  probably 
would  be  heavy  burdens  to  be  borne  by  some  poorer  communities, 
in  which  case  a  certain  "reserve  fund"  should  be  set  aside,  to  be 
distributed  by  some  responsible  educational  body,  for  the  relief  of 
those  communities  which  have  made  the  maximum  effort  allowed 


Summary  of  Conclusions  253 

by  law  and  yet  are  unable  to  meet  the  minimum  demands  of  the 
state,  and  those  whose  peculiar  circumstances  make  some  addi- 
tional assistance  particularly  desirable.  (Chapter  XIII.) 

19.  That  the  state,  in  making  the  apportionment  to  the  coun- 
ties, ought  to  use  as  good  an  apportionment  basis  as  is  used  by 
the   counties  themselves   in  making  the   apportionment   to   the 
townships  or  districts.     The  use  of  a  good  combination  basis  of 
apportionment  within  the  counties  cannot  overcome  the  inequal- 
ities created  between  the  counties  when  the  state  apportionment 
is  made  on  an  essentially  inferior  basis,  as  for  example,  census. 
The  best  plan  would  seem  to  be  that  the  state  and  county  appor- 
tionments be  made  on  essentially  the  same  combination  basis,  the 
state  apportionment  being  made  to  the  counties  instead  of  to  the 
townships  or  districts  only  that  any  county  funds  may  first  be 
added  before  making  the  township  or  district  apportionment. 

20.  In  states  having  no  state  school  tax  and  only  a  relatively 
small  income  from  the  permanent  school  fund  of  the  state,  this  in- 
come ought  to  be  reserved,  in  part  at  least,  for  use  in  aiding  neces- 
sitous communities  and  as  subsidies  to  encourage  the  introduction 
of  new  and  desirable  advantages,  and  it  should  not  be  distributed 
indiscriminately  to  all.     (Chapters  XIII,  XV.) 

21.  That  the  present  plans  in  use  for  the  apportionment  of 
school  funds  in  fully  three- fourths  of  the  states  of  the  Union  are 
in  need  of  careful  revision,  and  that  there  is  likewise  need  for  a 
more  careful  study  of  this  problem  than  has  been  given  it  so  far 
by  most  of  the  states  if  it  is  desired  that  future  evolution  shall 
take  place  along  more  intelligent  lines  than  has  been  the  case  in 
the  past. 


In  the  preparation  of  this  monograph  the  Sources  have  been  used  al- 
most entirely;  the  few  Secondary  Authorities  used  have  been  used  only  as 
authority  for  a  date  or  for  some  purely  historical  statement. 

The  SOURCES  used  have  been  the  following: 
Reports  of  the  State  Board  of  Education,  or 
Reports  of  the  Superintendent  of  Public  Instruction  of  each  of  the  States 

and  Territories  of  the  Union,  as  cited. 
The  Revised  Statutes  and  Codes  of  the  different  States  and  Territories 

of  the  Union,  as  cited. 

Session  Laws  of  the  various  States  and  Territories  of  the  Union,  as  cited. 
Last  edition  of  the  School  Laws  of  the  various  States  and  Territories, 

where  cited. 

The  State  Constitutions  of  the  various  States  of  the  Union,  as  cited. 
United  States  Statutes  at  Large,  and  Journal  of  Congress,  as  cited. 
United  States  Census  Bureau  Reports,  Census  of  1890  and  1900;  Volume 

on  Population.     (Washington.) 
Annual  Reports  of  the  United  States  Commissioner  of  Education,  for  the 

different  years,  as  cited.     (Washington.) 
INDIANA.     Biennial    Reports    of    the    Bureau    of    Statistics,    as    cited. 

(Indianapolis.) 
INDIANA.    Education  in  Indiana;  An  official  Monograph  prepared  for  the 

Louisiana  Purchase  Exposition,  St.  Louis,  1904.     (Indianapolis,   1904, 

604  pp.) 

INDIANA.    Reports  of  the  Auditor  of  State,  as  cited. 
WISCONSIN.    Reports  of  the  State  Tax  Commission,  as  cited. 

The  figures  as  to  valuations  for  the  other  states  used  have  been  taken 
from  the  figures  published  in  the  official  School  Reports. 

The  following  SECONDARY  AUTHORITIES  have  been  used  and  cited  only 

as  authority  for  certain  dates  or  historical  statements : 

BLACKMAR,  F.  W.  History  of  State  and  Federal  Aid  to  Higher  Education 
in  the  United  States.  (Washington;  United  States  Bureau  of  Educa- 
tion, Circular  of  Information  No.  I,  1890.) 

BOURNE,  EDW.  G.  The  History  of  the  Surplus  Revenue  of  1837.  (New 
York,  1885.) 

BUSH,  GEO.  G.  History  of  Education  in  New  Hampshire.  (Washington ; 
United  States  Bureau  of  Education,  Circular  of  Information  No. 
3,  1898.) 

(254) 


Bibliography  255 

CLEWS,  E.  W.    Educational  Legislation  and  Administration  of  the  Colonial 

Governments.     (New  York,  1899.) 
GERMANN,   GEO.    B.    National   Legislation   concerning  Education.     (New 

York,  1899.) 
KNIGHT,  GEO.  W.    History  and  Management  of  Federal  Land  Grants  for 

Education  in  the  Northwest  Territory;   in  Papers  of  the  American 

Historical  Association,  I,  pp.  79-247. 

MURRAY,  D.    History  of  Education  in  New  Jersey.     (Washington;   Cir- 
cular of  Information,  United  States  Bureau  of  Education,  No.  i,  1899.) 
ORTH,    S.    P.     The    Centralization    of    Administration    in    Ohio.     (New 

York,   1903.) 
RAWLES,    W.    A.    Centralizing    Tendencies    in    the    Administration    of 

Indiana.     (New  York,  1903.) 
SCHAFER,  Jos.     The  Origin  of  the  System  of  Land  Grants  for  Education. 

(Bulletin  of  the  University  of  Wisconsin,  No.  63;  Madison,  1902.) 
SHERWOOD,  S.     The  University  of  the  State  of  New  York.     (Washington ; 

United    States   Bureau   of   Education,    Circular   of   Information    No. 

3,    1900.) 
STEINER,    B.    C.     History    of   Education   in    Connecticut.     (Washington, 

United  States  Bureau  of  Education,  Circular  of  Information  No.  2, 

1893.) 
SWETT,  JOHN.    History  of  the  Public  School  System  of  California.     (San 

Francisco,  1876.) 
WHITTEN,  R.  H.    Public  Administration  in  Massachusetts.     (New  York, 

1903-) 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW 


AN  INITIAL  FINE  OF  25  CENTS 

WILL  BE  ASSESSED  FOR  FAILURE  TO  RETURN 
THIS  BOOK  ON  THE  DATE  DUE.  THE  PENALTY 
WILL  INCREASE  TO  SO  CENTS  ON  THE  FOURTH 
DAY  AND  TO  $1.OO  ON  THE  SEVENTH  DAY 
OVERDUE. 


APR  87  1984 

AUG  11  1939 

MAR  12  1987 

fllTO.D/SC.jW     6  ft 

• 

LD  21-100/x-7,'33 

•     •           -          • 

V 


YC   15154 

GENERAL  LIBRARY  -  U.C.  BERKI 


800081057=) 


